^ 

^ 

c2 

.^ 

CO 

i? 

-9* 

<^ 

a» 

^^^ 

IE 

1 

^ 

^ 

Q. 

I 

x^ 

"A 

o 

; 

^ 

$ 

^ 

(U 

c^ 

c 

«^ 

O 

^ 

rv 

o 

< 

13 

3 

^ 

^"^ 

|Zi 

E 

.«0 

<<> 

M 

(<j 

•vi 

j^ 

rt 

CO 

1^ 

-*-*' 
^ 

PM 

^ 

^ 

Ct 

2^ 

5i 

% 

s 

^ 

2i 

1 

V> 

CL 

1= 

. 

1 

Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arcinive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Tiieological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.arcliive.org/details/es9aysonbaptistc00rene 


ESSAYS 


♦        .         /V 


OR,    AN 

EXAMINATION  OF  THE  MODE  AND  SUBJECTS  OF 

BAPTISM: 

TOGETHER  WITH  THE  RIGHT  OP  ALL  DENOMINATIONS  TO 
THE  PRIVILEGE  OF 


/ 

By  RUSSELL  REXEAU. 


PHILADELPHIA: 
HIGGIXS  k  PERKIXPIXE,  40  N.  FOURTH  ST. 

1856. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1856,  by 

RUSSELL  RENEAU, 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the 

Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania. 


STEREOTYPED  BY  L.  JOHNSON  Ic  CO. 
PHILADELPHIA. 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SECOND  EDITION. 


The  following  Essays  were  first  published  in  1846. 
They  were  written  to  meet  a  local  necessity,  and  the 
idea  that  a  reprint  would  ever  be  called  for  was  not  in 
the  mind  of  the  author  at  all.  Although  the  work  has 
been  out  of  print  for  nine  years,  it  is  still  called  for. 
It  is  now  revised,  and  sent  out  once  more. 

The  sentiment  expressed  near  the  close  of  the  work — 
that  the  existence  of  sects  in  the  church  is  no  evil — is 
to  be  received  in  a  qualified  sense.  For  sixteen  cen- 
turies the  church  has  been  governed  too  much,  espe- 
cially igi  matters  of  conscience,  of  which  God  alone  is 
the  rightful  arbiter.  Separate  sects  have  been  organ- 
ized by  minorities  solely  on  account  of  the  oppres- 
sions and  usurpations  of  majorities.  These  evils,  in 
the  providence  of  God,  do  good  by  counteracting  each 
other,  just  as  one  poison  is  an  antidote  for  another.  In 
a  few  months  the  author  expects  to  have  ready  for  the 
press  a  new  work,  to  be  entitled  ^'The  Reign  of  Satan," 
in  which  many  of  the  evils  of  the  church  and  the 
state  will   be  discussed  with  the  greatest  freedom, — 

3 


4  PREFACE. 

among  which   sectarianism  will  receive   the  attention 
its  merits  demand. 

The  author  has  no  desire  to  believe  any  thing  but  the 
truth  himself,  and  surely  does  not  desire  to  inculcate 
any  thing  which  is  untrue.  It  was  his  aim  to  write 
these  Essays  in  conformity  with  this  sentiment,  and  he 
hopes  he  has  succeeded  in  showing  that  such  was  his 
intention  throughout  the  entire  work.  He  prays  the 
blessing  of  God  upon  the  work  and  upon  its  readers. 

Russell  Reneau. 

March,  1856. 


ESSAYS 


BAPTIST  CONTROVERSY. 


ESSAY  I. 

ON  CONTROVERSIAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

^'  It  was  needful  for  me  to  write  unto  you,  and  exhort  you 
that  ye  should  earnestly  contend  for  the  faith  which  was 
once  delivered  unto  the  saints."    Jude  3. 

As  no  man  can  know  every  thing,  and  as  the 
wisest  and  best  of  us  are  but  erring,  fallible 
creatures,  ever  liable  to  be  mistaken,  so  is  it 
unavoidable  that  men,  from  ignorance,  weak- 
ness, and  surrounding  circumstances,  should 
reach  conclusions,  even  on  plain  subjects,  to- 
tally different  from  each  other.  However  diffi- 
cult the  acquiring  of  truth  may  be,  it  is  never- 
theless a  treasure  that  enriches  the  mind  and 
elevates  the  affections;  while  error  and  false 
doctrine  can  only  deceive,  impoverish,  and  ruin 
all  who  trust  in  them. 

Wlien  a  doctrine  claims  admittance  into  our 
creed,  we  should  patiently  examine  the  argu* 

1*  9 


6  ESSAYS   ON  THE 

ments  used  by  its  friends  in  its  favor;  and  also 
those  used  by  its  enemies  for  its  refutation. 
We  are  tben  to  decide  upon  which  side  the 
weight  of  testimony  lies,  and  whether  the  doc- 
trine be  true.  Those  who  investigate  in  this 
way  will  not  often  be  deceived,  unless  the  sub- 
ject be  too  great  for  them,  or  they  suffer  their 
prejudices  to  blind  their  understandings. 

This  being  the  only  safe  way  of  arriving  at 
a  kniowledge  of  the  truth,  it,  of  necessity,  must 
be  the  surest  method  of  imparting  it  to  others. 
Hence,  controversy  is  unavoidable,  whether  the 
world  will  have  it  so  or  not.  Controversy  pre- 
supposes the  existence  of  opposing  parties,  both 
of  which  cannot  be  right.  If  there  be  any  virtue 
in  maintaining  religious  truth  and  opposing 
error,  there  is  the  greatest  propriety  in  contro- 
versial preaching.  Concerning  this,  however, 
there  is  a  great  variety  of  opinion.  Some  men 
seem  to  be  so  fond  of  peace  that  they  wish  all 
controversy  banished  from  the  church.  Some 
others  will  barely  allow  a  little  controversy  in 
self-defence,  provided  a  direct  assault  is  made 
upon  us;  and  provided  we  only  bring  argu- 
ments to  support  our  own  doctrines,  without 
saying  any  thing  against  the  doctrines  of  our 
assailants.  The  war  must  be  defensive  alto- 
gether. This  is  a  popular  form  of  controversy ; 
or  it  is,  at  least,  much  less  offensive  than  that 


BAPTIST   CONTROVERSY.  7 

which  assails  the  doctrine  of  our  opponents. 
If,  however,  it  be  our  duty  to  maintain  what  we 
believe  to  be  true,  it  is  equally  our  duty  to  dis- 
jplace,  as  far  as  we  can  by  fair  means,  what  we 
believe  to  be  error.  Hence  it  is  our  duty  to 
defend  our  own  doctrines,  and  we  have  the 
right  to  assail  the  doctrines  of  our  opponents. 

"WHiile  it  is  our  undoubted  right  to  refute,  as 
far  as  we  can,  every  doctrine  we  honestly  be- 
lieve to  be  false,  yet  we  have  no  right  to  assail 
the  feelings  of  those  who  hold  such  doctrines. 
Their  doctrines  and  arguments  should  be  fairly 
stated  and  fairly  met.  Xo  caricatures  should 
be  resorted  to.  These  are  \qtj  offensive,  and 
do  not  advance  the  cause  of  truth ;  but,  rather, 
they  do  gender  strife.  Severity  of  animadver- 
sion is  no  just  cause  of  offence,  where  there  is 
no  misrepresentation.  It  is  impossible,  how- 
ever, to  avoid  giving  offence  in  controversial 
discussions,  though  they  may  be  so  conducted 
as  to  avoid  2i\iy  just  cause.  This  giving  offence 
is  surely  an  evil,  the  avoiding  of  which  is  very 
desirable.  But  it  would  be  a  much  greater  evil 
to  abandon  all  discussion,  which  would  be  to 
place  truth  and  falsehood  upon  equal  footing. 
Since,  then,  controversy  must  exist,  let  every 
controversialist  state  the  question  honestly, 
argue  it  fairly,  and  do  all  in  the  spirit  of  Chris- 
tian kindness,  and  much  good  will  be  the  result. 


O  ESSAYS   ON   THE 

A  man  who  believes  a  doctrine  to  be  true, 
not  because  he  has  scriptural  reasons  for  it,  but 
because  his  party  or  denomination  believes  it, 
or  because  he  was  taught  it  by  his  parents,  will 
be  apt  to  be  displeased  at  your  attacking  his 
doctrine,  whether  you  do  it  kindly  or  othenvise. 
Having  made  up  his  opinion  regardless  of  proof, 
he  dislikes  to  hear  any  thing  against  such 
opinion. 

He  that  thinks  it  is  sufficient  to  know  that 
respectable  writers  have  advocated  his  doctrine, 
will  be  oft'ended  at  controversy,  because  he 
thinks  those  writers  have  settled  and  have  the 
right  to  settle  all  such  differences,  and  every- 
body ought  to  embrace  their  opinion  and  join 
their  party. 

He  that  thinks  it  is  better  to  embrace  a  ready- 
made  opinion,  though  it  be  false,  than  to  in- 
vestigate the  subject  and  form  one  of  his  own, 
will  be  offended  at  controversy,  because,  being 
too  lazy  to  search  out  the  reason  of  things,  he 
dislikes  to  be  disturbed  in  the  enjoyment  of  his 
borrowed  creed. 

He  that  believes  that  a  falsehood,  advocated 
by  respectable  men,  and  honestly  believed  by 
their  dupes,  is  as  good  as  the  truth,  without 
such  auxiliary,  will  be  displeased,  because  he 
likes  to  be  quiet  in  good  company. 

He  that  thinks  it  is  better  to  hold  doctrines  in 


BAPTIST    COInTROVERSY.  9 

concealmeut,  because  of  their  real  or  supposed 
want  of  popularity,  will  be  displeased,  because 
he  dislikes  exposure.  It  may,  he  fears,  prevent 
the  accomplishment  of  his  by-ends.  He  wants 
to  have  a  popular  creed. 

The  prejudiced  man  is  unwilling  to  submit 
his  opinions  to  investigation,  because  he  would 
rather  support  them,  true  or  false,  than  to  learn 
the  truth  from  the  opinions  of  others.  It  is  not 
strange,  therefore,  that  he  should  be  opposed  to 
controversy,  and  displeased  with  the  man  who 
preaches  it. 

The  man  who  prefers  the  truth  to  his  own 
opinions,  or  to  the  opinions  of  any,  or  of  all 
others,  is  pleased  to  see  his  doctrines  put  to  the 
test.  He  knows  truth  will  always  bear  exa- 
mination ;  and  however  unpopular  it  may  be, 
it  is,  nevertheless,  worth  more  than  the  most 
reputable  falsehood  by  whomsoever  advocated. 
He  will  not  shun  controversy,  because  some 
silly  ones  may,  perchance,  be  offended  at  it. 

To  controversy  it  is  objected,  that  it  destroys 
the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  different  denomi- 
nations. To  which  we  may  answer,  a  peace 
that  can  be  maintained  only  by  the  abandon- 
ment of  truth,  is  not  worth  having;  and  har- 
mony in  error  is  the  harmony  of  perdition. 
The  true  state  of  the  case,  conceal  it  who  may, 
teaches  us  that  men  are  not  agreed  in  their 


10  ESSAYS   ON   THE 

religious  belief;  and  to  pretend  they  are,  is  to 
act  more  like  knaves  than  Christians.  Peace 
men  would  have  us  throw  aivay  our  doctrines, 
for  peace'  sake,  or  cease  to  advocate  them,  which 
is  the  same  thing  in  the  sight  of  God,  and  in 
its  practical  results.  Suppose,  for  example,  an 
Arminian  brother  proposes  to  a  Calvinist  as 
follows:  ""Well,  brother,  on  the  subject  of  final 
apostasy,  we  have  never  been  able  to  agree; 
but  have,  sometimes,  felt  warm  when  talking 
about  it,  and  more  especially  when  our  preach- 
ers have  been  arguing  on  the  subject;  and  as 
peace  is  worth  more  than  every  thing  else,  if 
you  will  abandon  yours,  I  will  ihroiu  away  my 
opinion,  for  peace'  sake. ' '  To  this  the  brother  Cal- 
vinist answers,  "  I  am  decidedly  of  your  opinion, 
I  will  make  any  sacrifice  for  peace'  sake.  I  am 
opposed  to  controversy  any  how.  I  will  dis- 
countenance, if  you  say  so,  all  controversial 
preachers,  for  peace'  sake. ' '  "Will  any  be  so  hardy 
as  to  suppose  these  brethren  would  not  gain 
peace  by  such  a  bargain  ?  But  what  do  such 
peace  men  propose  to  do  with  their  doctrines? 
Why,  just  throw  them  away  for  peace'  sake. 
That  is  all.  They  think  so  much  of  their  no- 
tions, that  the  spirit  of  war  rises,  and  they  get 
mad  whenever  they  hear  arguments  urged 
against  them.  But  then  again,  they  love  peace 
so  well,  that  they  will,  each,  give  up  this  pre- 


BAPTIST   CONTROVERSY.  11 

cious  prize,  rather  than   fight  for  it.     But  is 
this  the  peace  of  God  ? 

Though  the  view  we  have  just  taken  of  such 
peace  measures  makes  the  whole  look  ridicu- 
lous enough,  yet,  ridiculous  as  it  is,  the  public 
conduct  of  many  in  the  present  day  is  equally 
ridiculous.  I  do  not  say  or  believe  as  much  of 
their  private  conduct.  For  really,  while  they 
jpuhlicly  declaim  against  controversy,  they  jpri- 
vately  advocate  their  own  doctrines,  and  assail 
other  people's,  taking  care  icho  is  ]present  for 
peace'  sake.  Then,  even  among  peace  men,  we 
have  the  real  war ;  privately^  it  is  true,  for  peace' 
sake.  They  really  assail  each  other's  doctrines 
in  private.  The  great  difference  between  such 
peace  men  and  public  controversialists  is,  the 
peace  men  give  each  other  no  opportunity  of 
defence,  it  all  h^mg  private  for  peace'  sake.  They 
stab  each  other  in  the  dark /or  peace'  sake.  They 
pretend  peace  while  war  is  in  their  habitations. 
The  whole  plan  is  deceptive ;  and  the  man  who 
practises  it  is  a  hypocrite.  Dare  any  one  say 
we  misrepresent  facts  ?  Or  do  we  draw  erro- 
neous conclusions?  He  who  can  only  love  me 
because  I  think  as  he  does,  or  be  at  peace  with 
me  while  I  either  pretend  so  to  think,  or  hold 
the  diflerence  in  concealment,  does  not  intend 
to  esteem  me  as  a  Christian  at  all.  He  who  is 
himself  a  sincere  Christian,  and  regards  me  as 


12  ESSAYS    ON    THK 

such,  loves  me  on  that  account ;  our  agreement 
or  non-agreement  being  of  but  little  import- 
ance. He  will  neither  require  me  to  conceal 
nor  abandon  my  opinions  for  the  sake  of  his 
friendship.  Should  he  do  so,  I  assure  him  he 
requires  of  me  a  much  greater  sacrifice  than  I 
am  willing  to  make,  and  a  much  higher  price 
for  his  friendship  than  I  ask  for  mine. 

To  controversy  it  is  objected  again,  that  it 
prevents  the  union  of  the  different  denomina- 
tions in  their  efforts  to  promote  the  glory  of  the 
kingdom  of  Christ.  If  by  union  be  intended 
amalgamation,  it  is  entirely  illusive.  I  have 
been  acquainted  with  many  of  these  union 
men.  They  are  of  all  denominations.  They 
wish  all  others  to  adopt  their  peace  measures, 
and  unite  with  them,  i.  e.  join  them.  This  is 
all  a  chimera.  Men  will  be  able  to  think  alike 
when  their  faces  are  made  to  look  alike.  All 
this  parade  about  union  and  amalgamation  is 
more  the  evidence  of  hypocrisy  than  of  Chris- 
tian  charity.  Since  men  have  the  right  to  think 
for  themselves,  and  to  advocate  their  opinions, 
we  should  all  love  one  another  regardless  of 
our  sectarian  peculiarities.  There  would  be 
about  as  much  wisdom  in  withholding  my 
Christian  res^ard  from  a  brother  because  he  was 
unable  to  think  as  I  did,  as  there  would  be  in 
withholding  it  because  his  nose  was  not  made 


BAPTIST    CONTROVERgT.  13 

like  mine.  If  a  man  sincerely  believes  himself 
to  be  in  the  right,  while  he  as  honestly  believes 
me  to  be  wrong,  I  would  think  more  of  him, 
while  he  honestly  tried  to  convince  me  of  my 
error,  than  I  would  of  a  thousand  peace  men, 
^who  are  equally  opposed  to  me  in  sentiment; 
but  for  reasons  best  known  to  themselves,  were 
always  controverting,  in  my  absence,  the  pro- 
priety of  controversy.  I  hold  all  such  in  utter 
detestation. 

The  author  of  these  essays  preaches  contro- 
versy for  conscience'  sake,  believing  that  his 
heavenly  Father  has  called  him  to  this  work. 
In  doing  this,  he  takes  no  greater  liberty  with 
the  doctrines  of  other  men  than  he  allows  them 
to  take  with  his.  He  would,  however,  thank 
those  gentlemen  who  have  no  doctrines  of 
their  own  that  they  think  worth  defending, 
and  have  found  no  error  in  this  naughty  world 
large  enough  to  be  worth  opposing,  and  are  so 
very  much  opposed  to  all  controversy  that  they 
cannot  do  any  of  it  publicly,  to  cease  contro- 
verting so  privately  his  controversial  preaching. 
If  controvert  you  must,  do  it  a  little  more  pub- 
licly, that  the  assailed  may  defend  his  own 
course,  while  he  "contends  earnestly  for  the 
faith  which  was  once  delivered  unto  the  saints." 


14  ESSAYS   ON   THE 

ESSAY  n. 

ON  THE   PREROGATIVES   OF   CHRIST. 

**2%e  Lord  is  our  Judge,  the  Lord  is  our  Lawgiver,  the  Lord 
is  our  King;  he  will  save  us." — Isa.  xxxiii.  22. 

The  three  component  parts  of  government 
are  the  Legislative,  the  Executive,  and  Judi- 
cial. These  are  clearly  set  forth  in  the  above 
text.  Of  Jesus  it  is  said,  "The  government 
shall  be  upon  his  shoulder."  Isa.  ix.  6.  Jesus 
says  of  himself,  "All  poiver  is  given  unto  me 
in  heaven  and  in  earth."  Matt,  xxviii.  18.  This 
government  is  called  the  kingdom  of  God — the 
kingdom  of  heaven.  All  the  power  there  is  in 
this  kingdom,  whether  in  heaven  or  in  earth, 
is  given  to  Jesus.  The  whole  weight  of  it  rests 
■upon  his  shoulder : — a  weight,  this,  too  heavy 
for  any  other  than  the  "  mighty  God,  the  ever- 
lasting Father."  True  allegiance  to  Christ  re- 
quires that  we  acknowledge  his  prerogatives  as 
herein  set  forth. 

Seeing  all  power  is  primarily  in  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  our  King,  it  will  chiefly  concern 
us,  at  present,  to  ascertain  what  powers  he  has 
delegated  to  men.  It  is  a  question  of  very 
great  importance,  whether  the  church  possesses 
any  legislative  authority  or  not.     We  advocate 


BAPTIST   CONTROVERSY.  15 

the  negative.  Power  has  indeed  been  dele- 
gated. But  this  power  is  executive  only.  The 
power  of  discipling  the  nations  has  been  dele- 
gated to  God's  ministers ;  but  they  are,  in  doing 
this,  to  teach  them  to  observe  all  things  what- 
soever Christ  has  commanded  them.  They  are 
not  allowed  to  exact  obedience  to  human  laws. 
"We  may  add  that  the  church  not  only  has  no 
legislative  authority,  but  she  is  absolutely  for- 
bidden to  exercise  it.  "If  any  man  shall  add 
unto  these  things,  God  shall  add  unto  him  the 
plagues  that  are  written  in  this  book :  And  if 
any  man  shall  take  away  from  the  words  of  the 
book  of  this  prophecy,  God  shall  take  aicay  his 
part  out  of  the  book  of  life,  and  out  of  the  holy 
city,  and  from  the  things  which  are  written  in 
this  book."  Eev.  xxii.  18,  19. 

Thus,  it  is  plain  that  no  human  being  has 
the  authority  to  enact  any  law  for  church  ob- 
servance; nor  has  any  the  power  to  repeal, 
modify,  or  change,  any  law  of  the  kingdom 
whatever.  There  is  one  lawgiver.  James  iv.  12. 
.The  holy  Bible  contains  the  laws  of  Christ's 
kingdom.  An  attempt  to  add  to  this  or  take 
from  it  is  nothing  short  of  high  treason  against 
the  government  of  the  King,  our  blessed  Lord. 
God  will  punish  this  treason  with  the  severest 
penalties.  He  will  take  the  traitor's  part  out 
of  the  book  of  life,  and  add  to  him  the  plagues 


16  ESSAYS    ON   THE 

written  in  the  book.  Members  are  to  be  ad- 
mitted into  the  church  in  the  observance  of 
Christ's  laws  alone.  They  are  to  be  admitted 
to  all  church  privileges  in  the  same  way;  and 
in  obedience  to  the  same  authority  they  are  to 
be  expelled,  when  that  thing  is  done. 

What,  then,  will  we  say  of  those  who  expel 
their  members  for  joining  temperance  societies  ? 
What  of  those  who  expel  their  members  for 
taking  the  sacrament  with  other  denominations? 
Are  not  these  things,  with  some  others  of  the 
same  or  similar  character,  done  in  obedience  to 
human  laws  ?  It  does  not  do  away  the  error 
of  introducing  the  commandments  of  men,  to 
urge  the  goodness  of  the  motives  which  prompted 
their  introduction.  For  men  have  no  more 
power  to  enact  good  laws  for  the  church  than 
bad  ones.  They  have  not  the  authority  to 
enact  any,  of  any  sort.  "By  every  word  that 
proceedeth  out  of  the  mouth  of  the  Lord  doth 
men  live."  Deut.  viii.  3;  Matt.  iv.  4.  We  are 
not,  then,  to  live  by  obeying  men.  Obedience 
to  men  is  vain  and  hateful  in  the  sight  of  God. 
*'But  in  vain  they  do  worship  me,  teaching  for 
doctrines  the  commandments  of  men.''  Matt.  xv.  9. 

When,  from  thirst  of  power,  doctrines  and 
practices  which  are  contrary  to  God's  word 
are  introduced  into  the  church,  its  faith  is  sub- 
verted and  its  practice  corrupted  in  exact  pro- 


BAPTIST   CONTROVERSY.  17 

poi-tion  to  tlie  triumph  of  human  tradition  over 
the  commandments  of  God.  For  this  crime 
the  Jews  have  been  driven  to  the  four  winds 
for  near  two  thousand  years. 

The  hatefuhiess  of  this  high  treason  against 
the  kingdom  of  Christ  cannot  be  more  clearly 
set  forth  than  in  his  own  words.     He  says : — 

"  Thus  have  ye  made  the  commandment  of 
God  of  none  effect  by  your  tradition.  Ye  hypo- 
crites !  well  did  Esaias  prophesy  of  you,  saying, 
This  people  draweth  nigh  unto  me  with  their 
mouth,  and  honoureth  me  with  their  lips ;  but 
their  heart  is  far  from  me.  But  in  vain  they 
do  worship  me,  teaching  for  doctrines  the  com- 
mandments of  men.  And  he  called  the  multi- 
tude, and  said  unto  them,  Hear  and  understand : 
IS'ot  that  which  goeth  into  the  mouth  defileth  a 
man ;  but  that  which  cometh  out  of  the  mouth, 
this  defileth  a  man.  Then  came  his  disciples, 
and  said  unto  him,  Knowest  thou  that  the  Pha- 
risees were  offended,  after  they  heard  this  say- 
ing ?  But  he  answered  and  said,  Every  plant 
which  my  heavenly  Father  hath  not  planted 
shall  be  rooted  up.  Let  them  alone :  they  be 
blind  leaders  of  the  blind.  And  if  the  blind 
lead  the  blind,  both  shall  fall  into  the  ditch." 
Matt.  XV.  6-14. 

In  this  passage  our  Lord  alludes  to  Isa.  xxix. 
13,  where  the  prophet  represents  the  Lord  a« 

B  2* 


18  ESSAYS   ON   THE 

complaining  that  the  Jews  taught  "  their  fear 
towards  him  by  the  precepts  of  men.''  K  it  be 
possible  to  condemn  the  introduction  of  human 
laws  and  tests  into  the  church,  here  that  con- 
demnation is  set  forth  in  language  we  cannot 
misunderstand.  Those  who  blindly  lead  a  de- 
luded multitude  into  the  observance  of  human 
tradition,  instead  of  the  commandments  of 
Christ,  shall,  with  their  followers,  fall  into  the 
ditch.  God  shall  add  to  them  the  plagues 
written  in  the  book.  This  making  void  the 
law  of  God  by  human  laws  is  the  sin  of  Rome. 
Sooner  or  later,  God  will  overthrow  her  by  the 
sword  of  his  mouth.  Let  every  Protestant  ad- 
here to  the  Bible,  which,  we  once  heard  Bishop 
Janes  say,  ^'was  older  than  the  fathers, — wiser 
than  councils, — truer  than  tradition, — more  ortho- 
dox than  creeds, — more  infallible  than  popes, — 
more  authoritative  than  priests, — more  saving  than 
ceremonies."  It  is  the  infallible  word  of  God. 
It  is  the  religion  of  the  Protestants.  Let  all 
follow  its  teaching  and  believe  in  its  Christ. 


BAPTIST   CONTROVERSY.  19 

ESSAY  ni. 

ON   THE   TERMS   OP   DISCIPLESHIP. 

The  term  ''Disciple,"  so  frequently  used  in 
the  IN'ew  Testament,  is  simply  tlie  appellation 
of  a  learner.  The  twelve  were  called  his  dis- 
ciples because  they  learned  of  Christ  the  doc- 
trines he  taught.  For  the  same  reason  those 
who  learned  of  John  were  called  his  disciples. 
Students  in  the  ancient  schools  were  called  dis- 
ciples. Thus,  the  church  is  a  religious  school, 
instituted  by  the  great  Teacher  for  the  purpose 
of  teaching  and  making  disciples  of  all  nations. 
The  ministers  are  subordinate  teachers,  sent 
out  to  teach  all  nations  the  importance  of  ob- 
serving all  things  whatsoever  Christ  had  com- 
manded them.  In  this  school  men  are  to  be 
taught,  or  schooled,  till  they  become  wise  unto 
salvation, — till  they  come  fully  to  the  know- 
ledge of  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus.  This  school 
is  a  labor  school.  AYhile  students  learn,  they 
labor  in  connection  with  others,  like  oxen  in  a 
yoke,  and  bear  a  burden,  like  travellers  far  from 
home  who  carry  their  own  equipage. 

All  who  desire  admission  into  this  school 
will  naturally  enough  wish  to  know  what  cha- 
racters the  great  Master  admits,  and  also  the 


20  ESSAYS    ON   THE 

terms  upon  wliicli  he  admits  them.  These  we 
shall  examine  carefully.  "We  will  quote  from 
the  laws  of  the  school,  as  laid  down  by  the 
Master. 

"If  any  man  wdll  come  after  me,  let  him 
deny  himself^  and  take  up  his  cross  daily,  and 
follow  me."  Luke  ix.  23. 

Here  we  have,  lirst,  the  character  pointed  out. 
He  desires  "to  come  after  Christ," — to  flee  from 
the  wrath  to  come:  plainly,  he  desires  to  be  a 
Christian.     Two  things  are  to  be  done : — 

1.  He  must  deny  himself. 

2.  He  must  take  up  his  cross  daily. 

The  only  thing  mentioned  in  the  character 
of  this  applicant  for  admission  is  simply  that 
he  wills  to  come  after  Christ.  He  is  therefore 
a  seeker.  When  a  man  denies  himself  and 
takes  up  his  cross,  he  must,  of  course,  join  the 
church. 

Therefore,  it  is  plain,  according  to  this  law, 
that  seekers  may  join  the  church.  We  will 
quote  from  the  law  again : — 

"Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that  labor  and  are 
heavy  laden,  and  I  will  give  you  rest.  Take  7ny 
yoke  upon  you,  and  learn  of  me;  for  I  am  meek 
and  lowly  in  heart :  and  ye  shall  find  rest  unto 
your  souls.  For  7ny  yoke  is  easy,  and  my  burden 
is  light.''  Matt.  xi.  28,  30. 

Here  again  we  have  the  character  of  a  seeker 


BAPTIST    CONTROVERSY.  21 

plainly  laid  down.  Of  him  it  is  said,  lie  labors 
and  is  heavy  laden,  and  that  he  has  no  re-s^  to 
Ms  soul.  He  labors.  He  struggles  hard  with 
sin  This  labor  was  rendered  doubly  hard  with 
those  that  wore  the  Jewish  yoke.  This  yoke 
was  hard.  The  Jewish  burden  was  heavy.  This 
added  greatly  to  that  heavy  load  of  guilt  under 
which  the  penitent  groaned,  bewailing  the  days 
of  his  folly.  He  could  find  no  rest  in  that  hard 
yoke  which  gendereth  to  bondage,  (Gal.  iv.  24,) 
because  it  could  not  relieve  him  of  his  burden, 
seeing  it  had  no  commandment  that  could  give 
life.  Such  in  modern  times  would  be  denomi- 
nated seekers,  mourners,  or  anxious  persons. 
Jesus  c^iiiiands  these  seekers  to  take  upon  them 
his  easy  yoke,  or  join  the  church. 

Lest,  however,  a  remaining  doubt  may  linger 
in  the  mind  of  any  of  my  readers,  I  will  remark 
further  upon  the  command,"  Take  my  yoke,"  &c. 

Every  one  knows  that  a  yoke,  literally,  is 
that  which  unites  two  oxen  in  the  same  labor. 
It  is  used  in  the  above  text  to  represent  that 
w^hich  unites  men  in  the  labor  of  religion. 
Thus  circumcision  was  the  yoke  of  the  Mosaic 
dispensation.  All  who  took  upon  them  this 
yoke  were  debtors  to  do  the  whole  law.  Gal. 
V.  3.  It  was  a  yoke  of  bondage.  Gal.  v.  1. 
Peter  calls  it  a  "yoke  which  neither  our  fathers 
nor  we  were  able  to  bear."  Acts  xv.  10.     The 


22  ESSAYS   ON   THE 

Jews  were  obliged  to  conform  to  this  law,  per- 
form its  labors,  and  bear  its  burdens ;  all  which 
required  united  efforts,  and,  as  such,  that  insti- 
tution which  united  them  together  was  pro- 
perly called  a  yoke.  This  was  circumcision. 
From  this  yoke  Christ  has  made  us  free.  We 
should,  therefore,  stand  fast  in  that  liberty.  Cir- 
cumcision is  the  hard  yoke  to  which  Jesus  doubt- 
less alludes  when  he  says,  "My  yoke  is  easy.'' 
It  now  remains  to  be  seen  what  his  easy  yoke  is. 
That  something  was  in  use  called  a  yoke,  in 
the  days  of  the  apostles,  is  evident.  Paul  calls 
a  brother  a  "true  yoke-fellow."  Phil.  iv.  3. 
The  great  end  of  the  gospel  was  to  get  men  to 
forsake  their  sins  and  to  live  in  obedience  to 
the  law  of  Christ.  Baptism  obliges  its  subjects 
to  walk  in  newness  of  life.  In  this  ordinance 
the  vows  of  the  gospel  are  taken  upon  us. 
This  ordinance  has  taken  the  place  of  circum- 
cision, and  must,  therefore,  be  the  easy  yoke 
of  the  gospel  dispensation.  "Take  my  yoke 
upon  you,"  is  then,  plainly,  a  command  to  be 
baptized,  or  join  the  church.  That  baptism 
was  Christ's  easy  3^oke  is  the  more  probable, 
if  not  certain,  from  the  connection  between 
wearing  the  yoke  and  becoming  a  learner. 
"  Take  mjyoke  upon  you  and  learn  of  we"  is  equal 
to  saying,  "  Submit  to  my  baptism  and  become 
my  disciple."     If  we  have  not  misapprehended 


BAPTIST    CONTROVERSY.  23 

these  passages  it  is  plainly  the  law  of  Christ 
that  seekers  are  to  be  received  into  the  church ; 
that  it  is  their  duty  to  join ;  and  that  ministers 
are  bound  to  teach  them  to  observe  this  plain 
command  of  our  great  Lawgiver. 

It  may  not  be  amiss  to  make  a  remark  or  two 
upon  the  obligation  of  taking  up  the  cross  daily. 
The  death  of  the  cross,  though  too  scandalous 
to  be  inflicted  on  a  citizen,  be  his  crime  what 
it  might,  was  so  common  among  the  Eomans 
that  affliction  and  trouble  of  every  sort  came  to 
be  called  crosses.  To  this  use  of  the  term  our 
Lord  undoubtedly  alludes  when  he  says,  "Let 
him  take  up  his  cross  daily  and  follow  me." 
The  cross  to  be  borne  is  a  quiet  submission  to 
persecution,  and  a  patient  endurance  of  the  sor- 
rows and  afflictions  which  come  upon  men  on 
account  of  their  allegiance  to  Christ.  Baptism 
pledges  us  to  the  endurance  of  such  things ;  for 
by  it  we  are  planted  into  even  the  likeness  of 
his  death.  Rom.  vi.  5. 

From  what  has  been  said,  we  think  one  who 
labors,  is  heavy  laden,  has  no  rest  to  his  soul, 
and  TVills  or  desires  to  come  after  Christ,  must 
be  a  seeker  of  religion :  it  also  appears  that  when 
such  a  seeker  is  commanded  to  come  to  Christ, 
to  submit  to  his  easy  yoke,  to  learn  of  him,  to 
deny  himself,  to  take  up  his  cross  daily,  and  to 
follow  Jesus,  he  must  be  commanded  to  join 


'24  ESSAYS    OX    THE 

the  church,  unless  we  suppose  that  all  these 
can  be  done  as  well  out  of  the  church  as  in  it, 
which  would  be  to  deny  that  the  church  rela- 
tion w^as  worth  any  thing  at  all. 

Seeing,  then,  that  seekers  are  commanded  to 
join  the  church,  to  forbid  them  to  do  so  is  to 
make  void  the  commandments  of  God  by  the 
doctrines  and  commandments  of  men.  If  the 
master  himself  has  indeed  guaranteed  to  the 
humble  but  sincere  seeker  the  right  to  join  the 
church,  such  a  one  has,  by  necessary  conse- 
quence, the  right  to  all  the  ordinances  secured 
by  that  relation.  Many,  very  honestly,  I  allow, 
feel  strong  opposition  to  this  view  of  the  sub- 
ject, and  oppose  it  with  a  zeal  worthy  of  the 
best  of  causes.  Such  opposition,  however 
honestly  and  zealously  made,  no  more  proves 
it  to  be  wrong  than  the  indignation  of  the 
Jews  proves  that  it  was  wrong  for  the  Lord  to 
eat  and  drink  with  publicans  and  sinners. 

An  examination  of  a  few  examples  left  us  by 
our  Lord  and  his  apostles  will,  we  think,  esta- 
blish the  view  we  have  taken  of  the  law  of 
Christ.  Let  it  be  remembered  that  many  sects 
in  the  present  day  contend  that  none  but  truly 
regenerated  persons  have  any  right  to  join  the 
church.  These  have  introduced  the  practice  of 
hearing  the  experiences  of  those  who  wish  to 
join  the  church,  in  order  that  they  may  be  able 


BAPTIST    CONTKOVERSY.  25 

to  determine  whether  such  applicants  have  the 
right  to  join  or  not.  ]^ow,  for  this  practice 
there  is  either  the  law  of  Christ  or  it  is  from 
man  only.  If  there  he  a  law  of  Christ  author- 
izing the  church  to  receive  members  by  making 
a  decision  upon  their  religious  experience,  that 
law  can  be  found  in  the  Xew  Testament,  or,  at 
least,  what  I  admit  would  be  equal  to  it,  the 
evidence  that  Christ  or  his  apostles  received 
members  in  that  way.  But,  if  neither  Christ 
nor  his  apostles  received  members  by  expe- 
rience, and  left  no  command  for  us  to  receive 
in  that  way,  it  is  manifest  the  law  requiring  it 
is  a  human  law,  by  the  observance  of  which 
men  make  void  those  commandments  of  Christ 
which  we  have  already  brought  to  view,  by  the 
traditions  of  men.  Unless  this  law^,  or  the  evi- 
dence of  its  observance,  can  be  found  in  the 
"New  Testament,  it  is  in  itself  a  nullity,  and 
those  who  exact  obedience  to  it  act  without 
law,  above  law,  and  contrary  to  law,  having  no 
other  than  human  authority.  If  Christ  be  the 
only  lawgiver  in  his  own  kingdom,  as  we  most 
strenuously  contend  he  is,  those  who  enacted 
this  man-made  law  usurped  the  divine  preroga- 
tive by  assuming  the  law^-making  power. 

Let  us  now  see  what  we  can  learn  from  Scrip- 
ture example.  Yf  e  will  first  see  how  the  Lord 
received  his  twelve  disciples. 


26  ESSAYS    ON    THE 

"From  that  time  Jesus  began  to  preach,  alid 
to  say,  Repent :  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is 
at  Kand.  And  Jesus,  walking  by  the  sea  of 
Galilee,  saw  two  brethren ;  Simon  called  Peter, 
and  Andrew  his  brother,  casting  a  net  into  the 
sea :  for  they  were  fishers.  And  he  saith  unto 
them,  Follow  me,  and  I  will  make  you  fishers 
of  men.  And  they  straightway  left  their  nets, 
and  followed  him.  And  going  on  from  thence, 
he  saw  other  two  brethren,  James  the  son  of 
Zebedee,  and  John  his  brother,  in  a  ship  Tvith 
Zebedee  their  father,  mending  their  nets ;  and 
he  called  them.  And  they  immediately  left 
the  ship  and  their  father,  and  followed  him." 
Matt.  iv.  17-22. 

"And  as  he  passed  by,  he  saw  Levi  the  son 
of  Alpheus  sitting  at  the  receipt  of  custom,  and 
said  unto  him.  Follow  me.  And  he  arose  and 
followed  him."  Mark  ii.  14. 

All  the  Evangelists  have  given  us  the  account 
of  the  call  of  these  disciples,  l^one  but  Luke 
records  any  fact  omitted  in  the  account  given 
by  Matthew  as  quoted  above.  Here  is  the  fact 
alluded  to.  It  is  in  regard  to  Peter.  He  said, 
"I  am  a  sinful  man,  0  Lord."  Luke  v.  8.  We 
conclude  that  we  have  all  the  material  facts  be- 
fore us, — at  least  a  sufliciency  to  enable  us  to 
determine  whether  Christ  received  these  disci- 
ples by  experience  or  in  some  other  way.     There 


BAPTIST    CONTROVERSY.  27 

is  uo  mention  made  of  any  of  tliem  relating 
their  experience,  the  reason  of  which,  doubt- 
less, is,  no  such  thing  took  place.  If  not,  it  is 
because  Christ  did  not  receive  disciples  in  that 
way. 

"We  would  ask  the  advocates  of  this  modern 
usage  whether  Simon  Peter  could  have  given 
in,  as  it  is  called,  a  Christian  experience?  He 
said  he  was  a  sinful  man.  If  he  told  the  truth, 
he  had  no  experience  to  relate ;  if  not,  he  was 
guilty  of  falsehood,  for  which  he  should  have 
been  expelled,  if  he  had  been  in  previously. 
So  far,  the  law  we  have  examined  in  the  former 
part  of  this  essay,  and  the  examples  now  before 
us,  correspond  exactly.  Let  us  see  how  the 
apostles  practised  under  their  view  of  the  di- 
vine law. 

Every  one  would  expect  to  find  something 
explicit  from  the  apostles  as  to  their  mode  of 
receiving  members.  It  will  be  interesting  to 
follow  the  accounts  of  their  revivals.  The 
most  interesting  account  is  the  first  one.  On 
the  day  of  Pentecost  three  thousand  were  re- 
ceived into  the  church.  In  the  reception  of 
these  we  may  learn  the  apostolic  mode  of  re- 
ceiving members. 

"l!^ow,  when  they  heard  this,  they  were 
pricked  in  their  heart,  and  said  unto  Peter  and 
to  the  rest  of  the  apostles,  Men  and  brethren, 


28  ESSAYS    OX    THE 

what  shall  we  do  ?  Then  Peter  said  unto  them, 
Repent,  and  he  baptized  every  one  of  you  in 
the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of 
sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost."  Acts  ii.  37,  38. 

1^0  regular  comment  on  this  passage  is  neces- 
sary. The  multitude  must  have  been  under 
great  excitement,  many  of  them  truly  awakened. 
From  these  the  general  cry  was,  "What  shall 
we  do?"  At  the  time  this  solemn  inquiry  was 
made,  no  experience  of  grace  could  have  been 
related;  and,  at  the  same  time,  Peter  directed 
them  to  be  baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins.  It 
seems  that  baptism  was  to  precede  remission ; 
consequently,  there  was  no  place  for  this  new 
method.  If  the  apostles  ever  intended  to  in- 
troduce this  law,  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  a 
favorable  time  for  it.  I  cannot  think  the 
account  of  this  would  have  been  omitted  if  it 
had  taken  place.  There  were  too  many  to  be 
received  by  experience  in  one  day.  "  The  same 
day  there  were  added  unto  them  about  three 
thousand  soids."  Acts  ii.  41.  Who  can  believe 
that  the  apostles  heard  an  account  of  conviction 
and  conversion  from  three  thousand,  and  then 
baptized  the  same  number,  in  one  day?  No 
man  living,  we  imagine,  either  does  or  can  be- 
lieve any  such  thing,  let  his  prepossessions  be 
what  they  may.     We  insist  these  three  thou- 


BAPTIST   CONTROVERSY.  29 

sand  did  not  join  by  experience,  not  only  be- 
cause the  thing  appears  to  be  impossible,  but 
because  not  one  word  is  said  about  their  join- 
ing in  that  way:  the  reason  of  which  most 
obviously  is,  no  such  thing  took  place.  If  not, 
it  was  because  the  apostles  did  not  receive  in 
that  wa}^  They  understood  the  law  of  Christ 
differently  and  better. 

It  is  supposed  the  case  of  the  Ethiopian 
eunuch  is  an  example  in  favor  of  the  new  law. 
Mr.  Howell,  a  leading  Baptist  writer,  has  the 
following  reckless  assertions  on  the  subject: — 

"So  scrupulous  was  this  evangelist  in  his 
determination  to  conform  to  the  commission 
by  baptizing  believers,  and  believers  only,  that, 
on  another  memorable  occasion,  although  pre- 
viously divinely  instructed  as  to  his  character, 
when  the  treasurer  of  Candace,  Queen  of  the 
Ethiopians,  had  been  taught  by  him,  had  avowed 
himself  a  convert,  and  had  made  application 
for  baptism,  he  paused  to  question  him  on  his  re- 
ligious experience^  and  replied  to  his  request, 
Acts  viii.  38,  by  saying,  <If  thou  believest 
with  all  thy  heart  thou  mayest'  be  baptized." 
— Sacramental  Communion^  2'-  1^4. 

How  Mr.  Howell  could  find  it  in  his  con- 
science to  pen  the  above  is  truly  astonishing. 
It  only  shows  what  fanaticism  will  drive  great 

3* 


30  ESSAYS    ON   THE 

men  to.  All  that  St.  Luke  lias  said  on  that 
point  is  the  following: — 

"And  Philip  said,  If  thou  believest  with  all 
thy  heart,  thou  mayest.  And  he  answered  and 
said,  I  believe  thai  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God,'* 
Acts  viii.  37. 

So  far  as  the  proof  goes,  Philip  did  not  ques- 
tion him  on  his  "religious  experience;"  nor  did 
he  relate  any.  Instead  of  any  such,  he  tells  the 
applicant  for  admission  into  the  church  that,  if 
he  believed,  he  might.  Upon  a  profession,  not 
of  conversion,  Mr.  Howell,  but  of  faith,  he  bap- 
tized him.  But  what  did  the  eunuch  believe  ? 
Did  he  believe  himself  regenerated  ?  He  doubt- 
less did,  if  such  were  the  fact.  But  was  he 
baptized  upon  a  profession  of  this  faith?  Or 
was  he  baptized  upon  a  profession  of  his  faith 
in  the  Messiahship  of  Christ?  These  inquiries 
are  easily  answered. 

But  to  this  it  will  be  objected  that  such  faith 
as  Philip  required  and  the  eunuch  professed 
implies  a  regenerate  heart.  If  this  be  so,  it 
will  upset  all  we  have  said  about  it.  Let  the 
Bible  answer  this  objection.  "Then  Simon 
himself  believed  also."  Acts  viii.  13.  IS"ow, 
what  did  Simon  the  sorcerer  believe  ?  Did  he 
believe  himself  regenerated?  K  he  did,  he  be- 
lieved a  lie,  unless  he  fell  from  grace  before 
Peter  arrived;  for  Peter  said  to  him,  "I  per- 


BAPTIST    CONTROVERSY.  31 

ceive  tliou  art  in  the  gall  of  bitterness,  and  in 
the  bond  of  iniquity."  Acts  viii.  23.  It  is  not 
said  what  Simon  believed ;  but  we  may  suppose 
that  he  "believed  that  Jesus  Christ  was  the 
Son  of  God."  I  am  aware  that  some  consider 
Simon  Magus  as  a  pretended  believer;  but  of 
this  there  is  not  the  least  evidence.  If  he  had 
the  required  faith  when  he  was  baptized, — and 
this  we  cannot  deny  without  flatly  contradict- 
ing the  Bible, — then  is  it  certain  that  either  the 
apostles  did  not  require  those  they  baptized  to 
believe  themselves  regenerated,  or  that  Simon 
was  truly  regenerated  when  Philip  baptized 
him,  but  apostatized  before  Peter  arrived.  But 
this  latter  cannot  be,  for  he  had  never  received 
the  Holy  Ghost.  The  conclusion  is  inevitable. 
Here  then  is  believers'  baptism  without  any  ex- 
perience to  tell.  This  is  the  case  with  all  these 
Samaritans  baptized  by  Philip ;  they  believed 
his  preaching,  but  the  Holy  Ghost  had  fallen 
on  none  of  them  till  Peter  and  John  came 
down  and  laid  their  hands  upon  them. 

Let  us  not  be  told  that  these  Samaritans  de- 
ceived Philip ;  for  of  this  there  is  no  proof.  I 
cannot  receive  conjecture.  I  must  learn  what 
apostolic  usage  was  by  what  the  Bible  says, 
not  by  what  interested  sectarians  say.  The 
truth  must  be  that  Simon  gave  in  no  experience 
when    he   received   baptism;     not  any  more 


32  ESSAYS    ON   THE 

than  Judas.  J^ow,  Mr.  Howell,  as  you  know 
so  much  about  Philip,  and  the  eunuch,  it  may 
be  that  you  could  tell  us  something  about  Judas. 
If  you  can,  I  would  be  glad  the  next  book  you 
write  on  Sacramental  Communion,  you  would 
answer  the  following  questions: — When  Christ 
received  the  twelve,  did  he  "question  them  on 
their  religious  experience?"  If  Judas  was 
"questioned  on  his  religious  experience,"  and 
gave  satisfaction,  did  he  profess  a  lie,  or  the 
truth?  If  the  truth,  did  he  retain  his  grace, 
and  die  in  the  divine  favor?  If  a  lie,  did  he 
deceive  Christ  ?  Or  did  Christ  receive  him  with 
a  lie  in  his  mouth,  knowing  such  to  be  the  fact  ? 
If  you  can  answer  these  questions  satisfactorily, 
many  would  be  obliged  to  you. 

Saul  of  Tarsus,  (Acts  ix.  18,)  and  the  com- 
pany at  the  house  of  Cornelius,  (Acts  x.  44-48,) 
could  have  given  a  true  gospel  experience  if  it 
had  been  required ;  but  there  is  not  the  least 
evidence  that  they  did  it,  or  that  they  were  re- 
quired to  do  it.     Far  from  it. 

On  the  supposition  that  the  apostles  received 
by  experience,  is  it  not  strange  that  the  whole 
New  Testament  furnishes  no  example  of  any 
one  relating  an  experience  as  evidence  of  fit- 
ness for  baptism?  Experiences  are  recorded, 
which  shows  they  were  considered  of  great  im- 


BAPTIST    CONTROVERSY.  66 

portance,  but  neither  law  nor  precedent  for  the 
relation  of  them  preparatory  to  baptism. 

The  conclusion  to  which  our  examination 
has  brought  us  in  regard  to  the  practice  of  the 
apostles  is  that  they  baptized  all  who  pro- 
fessed to  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  was  the  true 
Messiah,  and,  by  consequence,  the  Sa\iour  of 
the  world.  It  is  altogether  probable  that  the 
receiving  by  experience  is  quite  a  modern 
practice,  having  no  other  than  the  authority 
of  human  tradition.  Where  this  usage  has 
obtained,  we  insist  a  change  in  the  terms  of 
discipleship  has  taken  place.  We  are  not 
alone  in  this. 

Dr.  Mosheim  may  be  considered  against  us 
as  to  the  'propriety  of  the  change  in  the  order 
of  recei\'ing  members  into  the  church ;  but  he 
amply  sustains  our  position  as  to  the  reality  of 
such  change.  See  his  Ecclesiastical  History, 
book  i.  part  ii.  century  i.  chapter  iii.  section  v. 
He  says: — 

"  In  the  earliest  times  of  the  church,  all  who 
professed  firmly  to  believe  that  Jesus  was  the  only 
jRedeemer  of  the  world,  and  who,  in  consequence 
of  this  profession,  promised  to  live  in  a  manner 
conformable  to  the  purity  of  his  holy  religion, 
were  immediately  received  among  the  disciples  of 
Christ.  This  icas  all  the  preparation  for  bap- 
tism THEN  required;  ar^d  a  more  accurate  in- 
c 


M  ESSAYS    U^•    THK 

struetion  in  the  doctrines  of  Christianity  wasi 
to  be  administered  to  them  after  their  receiving 
that  sacrament.  But  when  Christianity  had 
acquired  more  consistence,  and  churches  rose  to 
God  and  his  eternal  Son  almost  in  every  na- 
tion, THIS  CUSTOM  WAS  CHANGED,  for  the  wisest  and 
most  solid  reasons.  Then  none  were  admitted  to 
baptism  but  such  as  had  been  previously  in- 
structed in  the  principal  points  of  Christianity, 
and  had  also  giveji  satisfactory  proofs  of  pious  dis- 
positions  and  upright  intentions.'' 

I^ow,  according  to  the  doctor,  "from  the 
earliest  times,"  during  the  first  century,  or 
"times"  of  the  apostles,  members  were  re- 
ceived into  the  church  ^'immediately,''  without 
examining  into  the  "satisfactory  proofs  of 
pious  dispositions  and  upright  intentions."  Ko 
such  thing  as  receiving  by  experience  was  then 
known.  This  improvement  was  left  for  the 
wisdom  of  after  times,  when  men  had  leisure 
to  become  wise  above  what  was  written. 

I  agree  that  in  the  "times"  of  the  apostles, 
which  were  "the  earliest  times"  to  which  the 
learned  doctor  alludes,  "a  firm  belief  that 
Jesus  was  the  only  Redeemer  of  the  world," 
and  a  promise  to  conform  to  the  purity  of  his 
religion,  was  all  the  preparation  required  for 
baptism;  and  I  also  agree  that  this  scriptural 
^* custom  was  changed:"  but  when  the  doctoy 


BAPTIST   CONTROVERSY.  85 

says  this  change  was  for  "the  wisest  and  most 
solid  reasons,"  I  disagree  with  him  altogether. 
These  reasons,  be  they  what  they  may,  can 
neither  be  wise  nor  solid,  since  they  make  void 
the  law  of  Christ.  The  reality  of  this  change 
is  further  confirmed  by  Dr.  Ruter  in  his  Church 
History,  Century  I.  chapter  iii.  p.  27.  He 
says : — 

"  The  initiatory  rite  of  baptism  was  permitted 
to  all  who  acknowledged  the  truths  of  the 
gospel  and  promised  conformity  to  its  laws. 
The  introduction  of  unworthy  and  disorderly 
persons  into  the  church,  from  this  easiness  of 
admission,  naturally  narrowed  the  terms  of  com- 
munion ;  and  baptism  was  afterward  confined  to 
those  who  had  been  2^'f^ei'iousli/  instructed  in  reli- 
gious knowledge  and  py-oved  the  sincerity  of 
their  profession  by  the  regularity  of  their  lives. 
The  probationers  for  admission  into  the  society 
of  Christians  took  the  humble  name  of  cate- 
chumens, while  those  who  were  already  conse- 
crated by  baptism  were  distinguished  by  the 
superior  title  of  believers,'''' 

Very  little  comment  on  this  passage  is  ne- 
cessary. Dr.  Ruter,  instead  of  giving  his  opinion 
of  either  the  wisdom  or  the  solidity  of  the 
reasons  for  this  change,  gives  the  reasons  them- 
selves. These  were  the  "introduction  of  un- 
worthy and  disorderly  persons  into  the  church,'* 


86  ESSAYS   ON    THE 

which,  as  he  says,  '^naturally  narrowed  the 
terms  of  communion,"  &c.  This  "narrowing" 
may,  fo^r  what  I  know,  have  been  '*  natural," 
but  it  surely  was  unscriptural;  it  set  aside  the 
apostolic  "easiness  of  admission,"  and  made 
void  the  law  of  Christ  by  the  commandments 
of  men.  ^N'arrowing  the  terms  of  communion 
has  not  cured  the  evil:  disorderly  persons  are 
still  received  into  the  church.  By  such  de- 
partures the  church  has  wandered  very  far 
from  the  laws  of  the  kingdom.  May  she 
speedily  return ! 

According  to  the  quotation  from  Dr.  Enter, 
"those  who  were  already  consecrated  by  bap- 
tism were  distinguished  by  the  superior  title 
of  believers."  Thus,  it  is  plain,  they  were 
called  believers  on  account  of  their  submitting 
to  baptism,  without  any  reference  to  the  state 
of  the  heart.  This  explains  the  case  of  Simon 
the  sorcerer,  concerning  whom  we  have  else- 
where spoken.  The  term  believer  did  not  in 
those  times  imply,  necessarily,  a  regenerate 
heart,  as  it  has  been  made  to  do  in  modern 
times.  It  is  more  than  probable  that  they 
were  so  called,  not  because  they  believed  them- 
selves regenerated,  but  because  they  believed 
that  Jesus  was  the  Son  of  God.  All  who  be- 
lieved this  were  entitled  to  baptism,  whether 
they  believed  themselves  regenerated  or  not. 


BAPTIST   CONTROVERSY.  37 

In  the  profession  of  this  faith  and  the  recep- 
tion of  baptism,  the  pagan  Gentiles  renounced 
their  idols,  as  did  the  Jews  their  Judaism.  It 
is,  therefore,  natural  that  even  a  seeker  who 
has  been  baptized  should  be  called  a  believer. 
Two  classes  of  believers  seem  to  have  received 
baptism  in  the  days  of  the  apostles : — 1.  Regene- 
rated believers,  such  as  Saul  and  the  converts 
at  the  house  of  Cornelius ;  and,  2.  Those  who 
w^ere  seekers  only,  such  as  the  three  thousand 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost  and  those  whom  Philip 
baptized  in  Samaria.  Acts  viii.  12,  13.  Of 
these  Samaritans,  we  are  expressly  told  that 
they  had  not  received  the  Holy  Ghost,  only 
they  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus.  Acts  viii.  15,  16.  It  may  not  be  amiss 
to  remark  that  there  are  two  general  classes  of 
unbelievers  who  are  not  entitled  to  baptism: — 
1.  Such  as  have  examined  Christianit}^,  more  or 
less,  and  have  rejected  the  evidence  which  con- 
vinces others  that  Jesus  w^as  the  true  Messiah, 
and  have  settled  down  in  unbelief;  2.  Such  as 
have  cared  nothing  about  it,. consequently  ex- 
amined nothing  concerning  it;  whose  god  is 
their  bell}",  and  their  end  destruction. 

Having,  as  we  believe,  proved  from  the  Bible 
itself  that  the  law  of  Christ  authorizes  seekers 
to  join  the  church,  and  that  the  apostles  re- 
ceived them  without  their  relating  any  experi- 

4 


38  ESSAYS   ON   THE 

ence  of  grace  whatever,  we  shall  now  proceed 
to  show,  if  we  can,  that  the  professed  object  of 
receivmg  by  experience  is  not,  nor  can  it  ever 
be,  realized. 

The  avowed  object  of  receiving  members  in 
this  way  is,  that  the  church  may  be  composed 
entirely  of  regenerate  persons.  To  show  that 
this  object  is  not  attained,  it  is  only  necessary 
to  mention  it.  There  is  not  a  sect  in  all  the 
land  that  thinks  that  it  has  accomplished  any 
such  thing.  We  know  of  no  denomination 
that  has  come  any  nearer  the  attainment  of 
this  object  than  the  Methodists,  who  receive 
seekers,  and  who  examine  the  experience  of 
none,  as  preparatory  to  baptism.  If  we  are 
right  in  this,  those  who  practise  upon  this  man- 
made  law  accomplish  nothing  at  all  by  such 
practice.  This  complete  and  entire  failure  is 
no  mean  comment  upon  the  wisdom  of  the 
measure.  This  failure  is  not  only  complete 
now,  but  it  must  continue  to  be  a  failure  until 
man  can  look  upon  the  heart  "Man  looketh  on 
the  outward  appearance,  but  the  Lord  looketh  on 
the  heart.''  1  Samuel  xvi.  7.  Now,  who  can  de- 
termine the  state  of  the  heart  without  looking 
into  it?  If  you  say,  No  one,  then  you  acknow- 
ledge that  tha  relation  of  an  experience  is  use- 
less so  far  as  that  matter  is  concerned.  If  you 
wiy,  The  church,  then  I  ask  how  a  church  made 


BAPTIST   CONTROVERSY.  39 

up  of  those  who  do  not  know  whether  their 
own  hearts  are  regenerated  could  decide  upon 
a  brother's  experience?  For  let  it  be  remem- 
bered, that  most  of  those  who  advocate  this 
mode  of  receiving  members  hold  that  a  man 
may  have  religion  without  knowing  it;  and 
some  of  them  hold  that  no  one  can  know  it. 
One  would  suppose  that  such  a  set  would  be 
poor  judges  of  such  matters.  How  often  the 
church  hears  and  decides,  gives  the  right  hand 
of  fellowship,  and  then  shortly  confesses  that 
she  was  deceived !  Yes,  brethren,  you  know  the 
church  is  often  deceived  in  that  matter ;  and  I 
would  afiectionately  remind  you  that  candidates 
for  admission  can  be,  and,  in  my  opinion,  often 
are,  deceived.  The  church  cannot  decide, 
understandingly,  such  a  matter.  If  not,  she 
should  not  attempt  it.  She  should  not,  because 
there  is  danger  of  an  inexperienced  man's  be- 
lieving himself  converted,  without  any  other 
reason  for  it  than  the  decision  of  the  church 
on  his  case.  K  so,  no  decision  of  the  church 
can  ever  make  his  conversion  real.  If  not,  no 
such  decision  ought  to  be  made,  or  any  step 
taken  to  delude  him,  to  confirm  him  in  his  de- 
lusion. This  is  rather  a  serious  business.  A 
man  thus  deluded  may  consider  himself  safe 
when  he  has  never  felt  the  power  of  God's  con- 
verting  grace.      This    delusion    is    the    more 


40  ESSAYS   ON   THE 

hazardous,  seeing  that  those  denominations 
which  make  such  decisions  teach  their  people 
that  they  can  never  fall  from  grace,  and  also  that 
they  may  have  religion  and  not  know  it.  To 
settle  men  down  in  this  way  is  dangerous  in 
the  extreme. 

This  is  a  painful  part  of  the  subject,  but  I 
dare  not  pass  it.  If  the  evidences  of  a  rege- 
nerate heart  be  so  superficial  that  a  man  may 
experience  that  great  work  and  not  know  it, 
must  they  not  be  too  superficial  to  enable  those 
who  do  not  know  their  own  hearts  to  be  right 
to  make  up  a  correct  judgment  upon  the  work? 
"We  object  not  to  the  relation  of  experiences 
for  the  purpose  of  edifying  and  comforting  one 
another.  What  we  object  to  is  the  requiring 
a  relation  of  them  as  a  prerequisite  to  baptism. 
Wliere  this  is  the  case,  there  are  frequently 
many  temptations  to  receive  upon  very  super- 
ficial experiences, — so  superficial,  indeed,  that 
frequently  they  are  heard  privately.  Some  de- 
nominations have  what  they  call  church  ses- 
sions, who  always  receive  privately.  The 
object  of  receiving  thus  privately  is  very  ob- 
vious. The  Baptists  usually  hear  these  dreams 
and  the  like  publicly.  It  is  only  when  they 
have  a  special  case  that  they  hear  it  privately, 
and  then  get  some  one,  that  is  better  up  to  it, 
to  tell  it  to  the  church.      Very  good  people 


BAPTIST    CONTROVERSY.  41 

sometimes  allow  themselves  to  become  very 
anxious  for  those  to  join  the  church  about 
whom  they  feel  special  concern.  In  such  case, 
there  is  great  danger  of  deceiving  and  being 
deceived.  Thus  men  are  persuaded  that  they 
are  converted  when  they  are  not.  "We  should 
never  persuade  a  man  that  he  has  religion. 
We  may  persuade  him  to  join  the  church  as  a 
means  of  conversion,  without  running  the  risk 
of  deceiving  him.  When  a  man  realizes  that 
great  work,  he  needs  no  persuasion  of  it.  He 
knows  it  himself.  "Every  one  that  loveth  is 
born  of  God,  and  hioweth  God,''  1  John  iv.  7. 
"He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  of  God  hath  the 
witness  in  himself.''  1  John  v.  10.  Let  no  man 
consider  this  matter  settled  till  the  "Spirit 
itself  bear  witness  with  his  spirit  that  he  is  a 
child  of  God."  Kom.  viii.  16.  Such  a  one  will 
need  no  persuasion  to  induce  him  to  believe 
himself  converted.  Our  inability  to  judge  cor- 
rectly is  a  sufficient  reason  why  we  should  not 
judge  at  all.  By  this  hearing,  guessing,  and 
judging,  we  can  only  deceive  ourselves,  and 
settle  down  irreligious  men  under  the  most 
fearful  delusion.  An  economy  that  so  con- 
stantly exposes  us  to  this  great  evil  cannot  be 
the  economy  of  the  lN"ew  Testament.  The  Lord 
alone  can  look  upon  the  heart. 

Our  views  are  now  before  the  reader.     Let 


42  ESSAYS   ON   THE 

the  whole  be  examined  in  the  fear  of  God. 
Let  nothing  but  the  truth  be  received.  Let 
the  Bible  be  followed.     I  ask  no  more. 


ESSAY  IV. 


ON   THE   RIGHT   OF   INFANTS   TO   CHURCH   MEM- 
BERSHIP. 

The  Abrahamic  covenant  secured  the  right 
of  infants  to  church  membership ;  and  that  right 
must  of  necessity  remain  as  long  as  that  cove- 
nant remains  in  full  force.  Hence  the  great 
question  to  be  settled  is,  whether  that  covenant 
is  done  away  or  yet  remains.  "We  contend 
that  the  Abrahamic  covenant  is  not  done  away, 

1.  Because  it  is  the  promise  of  salvation  through 
the  Messiah, 

This  we  prove  by  the  following  passages : — 
"Brethren,  I  speak  after  the  manner  of  men; 
though  it  be  but  a  man's  covenant,  yet  if  it  be 
confirmed,  no  man  disannulleth,  or  addeth  thereto. 
!N"ow  to  Abraham  and  his  seed  were  the  pro7nises 
made.  He  saith  not,  And  to  seeds,  as  of  many ; 
but  as  of  one,  And  to  thy  seed,  which  is  Christ, 
And  this  I  say.  That  the  covenant  that  was  con- 
firmed  before  of  God  in  Christy  the  law,  which 


BAPTIST   CONTROVERSY.  43 

was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  after,  cannot 
disannul,  that  it  should  make  the  promise  of  none 
effecV  Gal.  iii.  15,  17.  In  this  quotation  the 
word  "covenant"  is  used  twice,  the  word  "pro- 
mise" twice.  They  are  used  interchangeably, 
the  one  for  the  other,  and,  therefore,  mean  the 
same  thing.  But  w^hat  was  the  "promise"  here 
called  a  "covenant"?  "And  in  thy  seed  (thy 
Christ)  shall  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  be 
blessed."  Gen.  xxii.  18.  We  insist  that  this 
covenant  is  not  abrogated, 

2.  Because  Christians  are  called  the  children 
of  it. 

"Ye  are  the  children  of  the  prophets,  and  of 
the  covenant  which  God  made  with  our  fathers, 
saying  unto  Abraham,  And  in  thy  seed  (thy 
Christ)  shall  all  th£  kindreds  of  the  earth  be 
blessed.'*  Acts  iii.  25.  Here  the  promise  of 
Christ  is  called  the  covenant  which  God  made 
with  our  fathers,  saying  unto  Abraham,  &c. 
How  dare  any  one  to  say  this  covenant  is  done 
away  ?     It  is  not  done  away, 

3.  Because  Abraham  is  called  the  father  of  be- 
lieving Christians. 

"The  father  of  all  them  that  believe."  Rom. 
iv.  11.     It  is  not  done  away, 

4.  Because  Christians  are  called  the  children  of 
Abraham. 

"Know  ye,  therefore,  that  they  which  are  of 


44  ESSAYS   ON   THE 

faith,  the  same  are  the  children  of  Abraham.** 
Gal.  iii.  7.     It  is  not  done  away, 

5.  Because  the  proclamation  of  it  is  called 
preaching  the  gospel. 

"And  the  Scripture,  foreseeing  that  God 
would  justify  the  heathen  through  isiith,  preached 
before  the  gospel  unto  Abraham,  saying.  In  thee 
shall  all  nations  be  blessed.''  Gal.  iii.  8. 

From  this  passage  we  learn  that  Abraham 
was  fully  instructed  in  the  nature  of  the  bless- 
ing promised  through  Christ.  How  else  could 
the  gospel  be  preached  to  him?  When  this 
gospel  was  preached  to  Abraham,  he  "believed 
God,  and  it  was  counted  to  him  for  righteous- 
ness." Rom.  iv.  3. 

If  the  promise  of  a  Messiah  be  indeed  the 
covenant  of  the  Lord,  established  with  Abra- 
ham, then  are  the  privileges  and  blessings  of 
the  church  such  as  flow  from  such  promise. 
Salvation  was  the  chief  blessing  promised 
through  Christ.  It  was  justification  through 
faith,  (Gal.  iii.  8;)  the  "righteousness  of  faith." 
Kom.  iv.  11.  There  were  two  ways  of  repre- 
senting these  blessings : — The  offering  of  sacri- 
fices, typifying  the  blood  of  Christ  shed  for  our 
pardon ;  Circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  faith,  secured  by  the  application  of  the 
merit  of  that  blood  by  the  Spirit.  All  who 
were  interested  in   this  promised  atonement 


BAPTIST    CONTROVERSY.  45 

were  required  to  be  circumcised.  It  being  in 
the  mind  of  God  to  save  children,  he  made  the 
promise  of  it  to  them,  and  enjoined  their  cir- 
cumcision, which  secured  religious  training. 
**For  I  know  him,  that  he  will  command  his 
children  and  his  household  after  him,"  &c.  Gen. 
xviii.  19.  If  infants  were  fit  subjects  to  be 
made  partakers  of  eternal  life,  it  was  suitable 
to  give  them  the  outward  sign  of  the  Spirit's 
work.  Infants  were  circumcised  because  they 
were  interested  in  the  Saviour.  Their  right  to 
the  church  was  founded  on  their  right  to  salva- 
tion. It  will  be  hard  to  prove  that  they  have 
lost  the  one  while  the  other  is  retained.  While 
their  right  to  salvation  through  the  Saviour  re- 
mains, their  right  to  the  church,  in  which  they 
are  to  be  trained  for  bliss,  must  remain ;  they 
should,  therefore,  be  inducted  into  the  church 
by  its  distinguishing  ceremony,  baptism. 

The  essentials  of  religion  have  never  changed ; 
nor  can  they  change.  They  are  the  same  they 
have  always  been.  "We  have  seen  that  the 
covenant  which  secured  the  right  of  church- 
membership  to  infants  contained  those  essen- 
tials, and  that  infants  are  interested  in  them, 
on  which  account,  no  doubt,  the  right  was  se- 
cured. If  religion  be  ever  the  same,  and  the 
covenant  an  everlasting  covenant  in  which 
God  has  promised  to  be  a  God  to  us  and  our 


46  ESSAYS    ON    THE 

children,  (Gen.  xvii.  7,)  then  should  we  keep  the 
covenant,  we  and  our  children,  in  our  genera- 
tions: Gen.  xvii.  9. 

The  true  state  of  the  case  seems  to  he  this: — 
Circumcision  was  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of 
faith,  i.  e.  a  seal  of  the  plan  of  salvation.  The 
plan  is  unchangeably,  from  first  to  last,  salva- 
tion by  faith  in  Christ,  and  is  not  done  away. 
Nor  is  it  without  a  seal.  The  seal  has  been 
changed  by  our  great  Law^giver  from  circum- 
cision to  baptism:  for  "he  that  believeth,"  i.  e, 
obtains  the  righteousness  of  faith,  "  and  is  bap- 
tized," ^.  e.  takes  on  him  this  easy  seal,  ^' shall 
be  saved.''  The  changing  of  the  seal,  or  sign, 
by  no  means  argues  a  change  in  the  religion 
of  the  Lord. 

Let  us  see  if  circumcision  under  the  old  dis- 
pensation, and  baptism  under  the  new^,  are  not 
used  for  the  same  purpose. 

1.  Circumcision  represents  *the  work  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  in  the  heart. 

"And  the  Lord  thy  God  will  circumcise  thy 
heart,  and  the  heart  of  thi/  seed,  to  love  the 
Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all 
*hy  soul,  that  thou  mayest  live."  Deut.  xxx.  6. 
But  "  the  love  of  God  is  shed  abroad  in  our 
hearts  by  the  Holy  Ghost  given  unto  us." 
Rom.  V.  5.     Therefore,  circumcision  represents 


hAFXIST    CONTKOVEKSY.  47 

the  baptismal  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Again : — 

"He  is  not  a  Jew  which  is  one  outwardly; 
neither  is  that  circumcision  which  is  outward 
in  the  flesh :  but  he  is  a  Jew  which  is  one  in- 
loardly,  and  circumcision  is  that  of  the  heart,  in  the 
spirit,  and  not  in  the  letter ;  whose  praise  is  not 
of  men,  but  of  God."  Rom.  ii.  28,  29.  This 
heart-work  must  be  the  work  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  The  apostle  calls  it  the  work  of  the 
heart,  in  the  spirit  He  also  calls  it  the  circum- 
cision of  the  heart.  Outward  circumcision  avail- 
eth  nothing,  if  it  be  without  the  inward  cir- 
cumcision, by  which  a  man  becomes  a  new 
creature.  The  circumcision  of  the  heart  must 
be  what  our  Lord  calls  the  new  birth. 

A  Baptist  brother  once  said,  in  my  hearing, 
that  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  came  in  the  room 
of  circumcision.  That  brother,  and  all  of  his 
faith,  would  do  well  to  remember  that  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Spirit  has  always  stood  in  its  own 
place. 

Having  shown  that  circumcision  represented 
the  baptismal  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  we 
shall  now  proceed  to  see  whether  baptism  does 
not  represent  the  same  influence. 

2.  Baptism  represents  the  work  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  in  the  heart. 

^^I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water,  but  he 


48  ESSAYS   ON   THE 

shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  Matt, 
ill.  11.  *' John  truly  baptized  with  water,  but 
ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  not 
many  days  hence."  Acts  i.  5 ;  Acts  xi.  16.  Paul 
calls  baptism  "the  washing  of  regeneration," 
(Titus  iii.  5,)  "  the  washing  of  water."  "  Wash 
away  thy  sins."  This  washing  of  regeneration 
has  taken  the  place  of  circumcision. 

Circumcision  was  the  seal  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  Abraham's  faith.  Rom.  iv.  11.  So 
Paul's  baptism  represented  the  washing  away 
of  his  sins.  Acts  xxii.  16.  The  righteousness 
of  faith  was  the  same  in  the  patriarch  and  the 
apostle.  In  one  it  was  represented  by  circum- 
cision; in  the  other,  by  baptism.  The  right- 
eousness of  faith  never  has  changed,  and  never 
will  change.  Seals  have  changed,  but  the 
righteousness  of  that  faith  which  takes  hold 
of  the  great  atonement  has  not  changed,  and 
never  can  change  till  the  government  of  God 
changes.  The  church  of  God  yet  stands  un- 
changed. The  good  olive-tree  yet  remains. 
Some  of  its  branches — the  Jews  and  their  chil- 
dren— have  been  broken  oft';  and  branches  from 
the  wild  olive-tree — the  Gentiles  and  their  chil- 
dren— have  been  grafted  into  it.  The  Lord's 
vineyard  has  not  been  turned  out  to  the  wild 
beasts ;  but  it  has  been  taken  from  the  Jews 
and  given  to  the   Gentiles.     Infants  have  a 


BAPTIST   CONTROVERSY.  49 

divine  right  to  church  privileges,  clearly,  under 
the  Old  Testament  times.  The  church  being 
the  same  under  all  dispensations,  that  right 
remains  unimpaired,  unless  their  Christ  has 
deprived  them  of  it.  If  he  has  not  done  so,  no 
other  has  the  power  to  do  it,  nor  can  it  be  done 
without  making  void  the  commandments  of 
God  by  the  traditions  of  men. 

We  are  sometimes  told  that  circumcision  was 
simply  intended  to  distinguish  the  Israelites 
from  all  other  people.  This  it  did  not  do. 
The  Ishmaelites,  the  Edomites,  the  descendants 
of  the  sons  Abraham  had  by  Keturah,  the  ser- 
vants born  in  his  house,  and  the  Egyptians, 
were  all  circumcised.  We  are  also  told  that  it 
was  a  sort  of  political  pledge  that  God  would 
give  to  Abraham's  posterity  the  land  of  Ca- 
naan. This  could  not  be.  The  Ishmaelites, 
the  sons  of  Keturah,  and  the  Edomites,  were 
all  the  posterity  of  Abraham,  but  never  did  re- 
ceive any  part  of  that  land.  These  were,  there- 
fore, circumcised  for  something  else.  Similar 
difficulties  occur  in  making  it  a  pledge  that  the 
Messiah  should  descend  from  them.  This  it 
could  not  be  to  any  but  his  immediate  pro- 
genitors. Put  the  pledge  of  this  promise  upon 
Ishmael,  and  you  put  the  pledge  of  a  falsehood 
upon  him.  We  must  look,  therefore,  for  some- 
thing in  which  the  Ishmaelites,  the  Edomites, 


50  ESSAYS   ON   THK 

the  children  of  K^eturah,  and  Abraham's  ser- 
vants, were  all  interested.  ^N'ow,  what  was 
that?  "In  thy  seed  (in  thy  Christ)  shall  all 
the  nations  of  the  earth  he  blessed."  Gen.  xxii. 
18.  This  makes  it  all  plain.  Christ  has  come 
and  ordered  the  blessing  to  be  proclaimed  to 
all  nations.  Abraham  believed  in  Christ,  and 
God  counted  it  to  him  for  righteousness.  He 
then  received  circumcision  as  a  seal  of  that 
righteousness.  Faith  in  nothing  but  the  atone- 
ment of  Christ  could  make  Abraham  or  any 
one  else  righteous.  If  not,  the  whole  is  plain. 
Children  were  circumcised  because  the  promise 
was  made  to  them.  For  the  same  reason  they 
should  be  baptized:  for  the  apostle  says,  "The 
promise  is  unto  you  and  your  children,"  &c. 

Having  shown  that  infants  were  admitted  to 
a  place  in  the  only  church  God  ever  instituted, 
upon  the  authority  of  God  himself,  and  that  no 
other  than  Christ  can  have  any  authority  to  de- 
prive them  of  that  right,  we  shall  now  j)roceed 
to  show  that  Christ  not  only  has  not  deprived 
our  children  of  a  place  in  his  kingdom,  but 
that  he  has  confirmed  their  right  to  it,  and 
sanctioned,  if  not  commanded,  their  reception. 
Take  the  following : — 

"At  the  same  time  came  the  disciples  unto 
Jesus,  saying,  Wlio  is  the  greatest  in  the  king- 
dom  of  heaven  f    And  Jesus  called  a  liiile  child 


BAPTIST    CONTROVERSY.  51 

unto  him,  and  set  him  in  the  midst  of  them, 
and  said,  Verily,  I  say  unto  you,  Except  ye  be 
converted,  and  become  as  little  childrc7i,  ye  shall 
not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Who- 
soever, therefore,  shall  humble  himself  as  this 
Utile  childy  the  same  is  greatest  in  the  kingdom 
of  heaven.  And  whoso  shall  receifx  one  such 
little  child  in  my  mime  receiveth  me."  Matt, 
xviii.  1-5. 

1.  This  "little  child"  was  literally  an  infant. 
"We  are  aware  that  some  believe  that  a  young 
convert  is  meant  by  the  expression  ^'' little  child.'' 
That  even  old  converts  are  sometimes  called 
"little  children"  we  do  not  deny;  but  that 
any  sort  of  an  adult  is  called  by  that  appella- 
tion in  the  text  now  under  consideration  is 
what  no  man,  living  or  dead,  ever  did  or  ever 
will  prove.  When  we  consult  the  parallel  pas- 
sage in  Mark's  account,  the  whole  is  plain: — 
"And  he  took  a  child,  and  set  him  in  the  midst 
of  them :  and  when  he  Jiad  talcen  him  in  his  arms, 
he  said  unto  them,  Whosoever  shall  receive  one 
of  such  little  children  in  my  name  receiveth  me : 
and  whosoever  shall  receive  me  receiveth  not 
me,  but  him  that  sent  me."  Mark  ix.  36,  37. 
Here  we  are  informed  explicitly  that  this  "little 
child"  was  "taken  in  his  arms,"  which  proves 
beyond  successful  contradiction  that  it  was  a 
little  infant,  and  not  a  young  convert.    N'othing 


52  ESSAYS    ON   THE 

further,  it  is  presumed,  need  be  said  on  this 
head. 

2.  The  kingdom  of  heaven,  in  this  passage, 
means  the  church  on  earth.  This  we  argue  as 
follows : — 

The  disciples  had  so  far  misunderstood  the 
nature  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  then  near  at 
hand,  that  they  supposed  it  to  be  secular,  and 
so  fell  into  a  dispute  about  which  of  themselves 
should  be  the  greatest  man  in  it.  This  gave 
Christ  an  opportunity  of  informing  them  that 
none  of  them  were  entitled  to  be  in  it,  much 
less  to  be  the  greatest  of  all  that  were  in  it, 
except  they  should  be  converted  from  these 
notions  of  worldly  power  and  greatness,  and 
become  as  little  children,  to  feel  their  weakness 
and  helplessness. 

3.  Infants,  or  little  children,  are  to  be  re- 
ceived into  this  kingdom  of  heaven.  This  the 
text  itself  declares : — "And  whoso  shall  receive 
one  such  little  child  [into  the  kingdom  of  hea- 
ven] in  my  name  receiveth  me." 

4.  Infants  are  not  only  to  be  received  into 
the  church,  but  the  Saviour  has  there  made 
them  the  models  to  the  likeness  of  which 
adults  are  to  be  converted  before  they  are  en- 
titled to  enter  into  this  kingdom.  This  the 
text  also  declares: — "Except  ye  be  converted, 


BAPTIST    CONTROVERSY.  53 

and  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall  not  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 

If  that  conversion  which  causes  an  adult  to 
resemble  a  little  child  makes  him  a  proper  sub- 
ject to  be  received  into  the  church  or  to  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  must  not  the  little 
child  himself  be  a  fit  subject  to  enter  into  that 
kingdom  ?  On  the  supposition  that  infants  are 
not  proper  subjects  to  be  received,  how  could 
an  adult  that  had  become  as  a  little  child  be 
properly  received  ? 

It  was  a  severe  reproof  to  tell  his  worldly- 
minded  disciples,  who  were  proudly  looking 
forward  to  their  future  greatness  when  their 
Master  should  sit  upon  the  throne  of  an  earthly 
monarch,  making  all  nations  tributary  to  them, 
that,  to  become  the  greatest  in  his  coming 
kingdom,  they  must  humble  themselves  as  the 
little  child  he  had  in  his  arms;  and  that  they 
were  not  only  to  be  humble  like  a  child  in  order 
that  they  might  enter  into  it,  but  that  the  chil- 
dren were  also  to  be  received  in  his  name,  and 
be  as  great  as  any  adult  could  be.  Upon  the 
whole,  we  think  it  clear  enough  that  by  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  in  this  text,  is  meant  the 
Christian  church,  and  that  infants  are  to  be  re- 
ceived into  it  in  the  name  of  Christ.  We  pro- 
ceed then  to  examine  his  declaration  on  another 
occasion : — 

5» 


54  ESSAYS   ON   THE 

"And  they  brought  young  children  to  him, 
that  he  should  touch  them;  and  his  disciples 
rebuked  those  that  brought  them.  But  when 
Jesus  saw  it  he  was  much  disjdeased,  and  said 
unto  them,  Suffer  the  little  children  to  come  unto 
me,  and  forbid  them  not :  for  of  such  is  the  king- 
dom of  God.  Yerily  I  say  unto  you,  Whosoever 
shall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little 
child,  he  shall  not  enter  therein.  And  he  took 
them  up  in  his  arms,  put  his  hands  upon  them^ 
and  blessed  them."  Mark  x.  13,  16. 

Here  we  have : — 

1.  Infants,  "young  children,"  presented  to 
the  Master  for  his  blessing. 

2.  Those  who  brought  these  infants  to  Christ 
were  rebuked. 

3.  At  this  rebuke,  Christ,  the  lawgiver, 
was  displeased,  and  revoked  it  with  his  own 
authority. 

4.  He  ordered  the  disciples  to  allow  them  to 
come  to  him,  and  never  forbid  them  any  more. 

5.  He  declares  that  of  such  children  was  the 
kingdom  of  God. 

6.  He  declares  them  to  be  the  model  after 
which  adults  were  to  be  received.  They  were 
to  receive  the  kingdom  just  as  little  children 
receive  it. 

7.  He  ordained  them,  by  the  imposition  of 
tiis  own  hands,  and  prayer,  (Matt.  xix.  13,  15,) 


BAPTIST   CONTROVERSY.  55 

to  the  rights,  privileges,  and  "blessings"  of  that 
kingdom  of  which  he  declared  them  the  sub- 
jects. 

By  "the  kingdom  of  God"  in  this  passage  is 
certainly  meant  the  Christian  church.  This  is 
the  only  kingdom  the  keys  of  which  (Matt, 
xvi.  19)  were  ever  given  to  the  apostles  who 
had  now  shut  the  door  against  these  little  chil- 
dren. Into  this  kingdom  we  are  commanded 
to  suffer  the  little  children  to  come,  and  to  for- 
bid them  not.  This  command  is  given  for  the 
best  of  reasons : — "  Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
God."  But  how  are  they  to  receive  the  king- 
dom of  God  ?  Just  as  an  adult  does : — by  bap- 
tism, without  giving  in  any  experience.  If  we 
have  rightly  interpreted  these  passages  of  God's 
word,  we  have  the  sanction  of  the  Saviour  for 
infant  baptism  most  clearly  set  forth  and  esta- 
blished. 

Will  our  opponents  give  us  the  true  expo- 
sition of  these  texts  if  we  have  not  done  it? 
"Will  they  show  that  the  phrases  "kingdom  of 
God"  and  "kingdom  of  heaven"  do  not  mean 
the  Christian  church,  as  we  have  set  forth? 
K  they  mean  any  thing  else,  what  is  that  other 
thing  ?  "Will  they  show  that  the  apostles  could 
"receive  little  children  in  the  name  of  Christ," 
and  that  little  children  could  receive  the  king- 
dom of  God  -without  baptism  ?     These  questions 


56  HSSAVS    Ox\    THE 

they  will  never  answer.     Tliey,  as  usual,  will 
give  tliem  the  go  by. 

"He  saith  unto  him,  Feed  my  lambs.''  John 
xxi.  15. 

1.  These  lambs  are  little  children.  We  argue 
this  from  adult  Christians  being  called  sheep  in 
the  16th  and  17th  verses  of  the  chapter. 

2.  These  children  are  called  Christ's  lambs. 
They  must  therefore  have  been  "  received  in  his 
name"  into  his  kingdom ;  and  they  must  also 
have  received  his  mark  in  their  foreheads. 
Ezek.  ix.  4;  Kev.  vii.  3. 

3.  These  lambs  are  to  be  fed.  This  explains 
the  pastoral  labors  spoken  of  by  the  prophet : — 
"  Gather  the  children,  and  those  that  suck  the 
breasts."  Joel  ii.  16.  But  why  would  the  pro- 
phet have  these  lambs  gathered  into  the  fold 
of  Christ?  We  answer,  that  they  might  be 
fed ;  that  they  might  be  trained  up  in  the  way 
they  should  go,  or  in  the  church. 

We  must  now  proceed  to  notice  the  view  the 
apostles  took  of  the  law  of  Christ.  The  first 
clue  we  get  to  this  part  of  our  subject  is  found 
in  Acts  ii.  38,  39.  ''Repent  and  be  baptized, 
every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ, 
for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive 
the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  the  promise 
is  unto  you,  and  to  your  children,  and  to  all  that 
are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God 


BAPTIST    COJsTKOVERSV.  57 

shall  call."  The  promise  which  is  here  said  to 
be  made  to  them  and  their  children  is,  doubt- 
less, the  one  made  at  the  first  institution  of 
circumcision: — "And  I  will  establish  my  cove- 
nant between  me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after 
thee,  in  their  generations,  for  an  everlasting 
covenant,  to  be  a  God  unto  thee  and  to  thy 
seed  after  thee."  Gen.  xvii.  7.  For  the  mean- 
ing of  this  "  everlasting  covenant,"  see  Acts  iii. 
25,  Gen.  xii.  3,  where  it  is  proven  to  be  the 
promise  of  a  Saviour, — the  right  promise  to 
renew  with  children  at  the  inauguration  of  the 
apostles,  unless  they  have  lost  their  interest  in 
the  Messiah.  See  Acts  xvi.  31,  where  the  pro- 
mise is  made  to  the  jailer  and  to  all  his  house. 
We  must  look  further  to  the  practice  of  the 
apostles  for  their  faith  in  the  validity  of  infant 
baptism.  They  baptized  the  household  of 
Lydia,  (Acts  xvi.  14,  15,)  of  the  jailer,  (33,)  of 
Stephanas,  (1  Cor.  i.  16.)  I  am  aware  that  it  is 
said  there  were  no  infants  in  any  of  these 
households.  But  this  is  asserted  without  any 
evidence  or  probability  to  sustain  it.  We  pur- 
pose no  regular  comment  upon  these  household 
baptisms.  It  must  be  owned  on  both  sides 
that  the  Bible  does  not  say  whether  there  were 
any  infants  in  any  of  them.  We  are  only 
informed  that  whole  families  were  baptized. 
There  is  one  circumstance  which  throws  light 


58  ESSAYS    ON    THE 

upon  the  subject,  connected  with  the  case  of 
both  Ljdia  and  the  jailer : — that  is,  the  account 
proves  the  conversion  of  the  head  of  the  family 
only.  Their  famihes  seem  to  have  been  bap- 
tized on  account  of  the  faith  of  the  parent. 

The  presumption  is  therefore  strong,  that 
there  were  infants  among  them.  And  what 
increases  the  probability  in  the  case  of  the 
jailer  is,  the  apostolic  answer  to  his  question, 
"  What  must  I  do  to  he  saved  r  To  this  Paul 
and  Silas  answ^ered,  "  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved,  and  thy  house.'' 
Acts  xvi.  31.  Here  is  a  positive  promise  that 
his  house  should  partake  of  the  privileges  and 
benefits  of  his  faith.  The  similarity  in  this 
promise  to  the  one  on  the  day  of  Pentecost 
must  appear  to  all. 

The  reader  may  judge  whether  these  texts 
throw  light  on  this  subject  or  not.  They 
teach,  to  our  mind,  a  very  interesting  lesson. 
Whether  there  were  infants  in  these  house- 
holds, or  not,  is  of  no  consequence,  if  we  feel 
satisfied  that  children  were  baptized  on  the 
faith  of  their  parents,  just  as  they  were  circum- 
cised on  such  faith. 

The  case  in  the  7th  chapter  of  1st  Corinthians 
throws  some  light  on  the  subject.  They  seem 
to  have  gotten  into  numerous  difliculties,  which 
induced  them  to  w^rite  to  the  apostle  for  advice, 


BAPTIST    CONTROVERSY.  59 

(ver.  1.)  They  were  perplexed  to  know  whether 
the  Christian  husband  should  continue  to  live 
with  an  unconverted  wife ;  to  which  Paul  an- 
swered, '''Let  not  the  husband  put  away  his  ivife,'' 
(ver.  11.)  To  a  Christian  wife  having  a  heathen 
husband,  he  says,  "Let  not  the  wife  depart 
from  her  husband,"  (ver.  10 ;)  "let  her  not  leave 
him,"  (ver.  13.)  There  seems  likewise  to  have 
been  a  doubt  whether  the  promise  was  made 
to  children,  unless  both  father  and  mother 
were  Christians;  to  which  the  apostle  an- 
swers, "  The  unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified 
by  the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife  is  sancti- 
fied by  the  husband:  else  were  your  children 
unclean;  but  now  are  they  holy,"  (ver.  14.) 
jSTow,  everybody  knows  that  the  Jews  considered 
all  other  nations  unclean;  and  there  is  little 
doubt  that  there  was  enough  of  Jewish  influ- 
ence at  Corinth  to  produce  all  this  difficulty 
about  the  uncleanness  of  children  who  had  but 
one  Christian  parent.  The  very  existence  of 
the  difficulty  proves  much.  How  could  there 
be  any  seiious  difficulty  about  the  children 
unless  there  had  been  objections  to  their  being 
baptized  on  account  of  one  of  their  parents 
being  in  unbelief?  This  accounts  for  the  whole 
difficulty ;  while  on  any  other  supposition  it  is 
wholly  unaccountable.  This  view  is  further 
strengthened  from  Paul's  calling  the  children 


60  ESSAYS    ON    Tilt: 

^^holyy  He  must  have  intended  to  teach  that 
they  were  ceremonially  holy,  and  so  there  was 
nothing  in  the  way  of  their  receiving  baptism. 
He  could  not  have  meant  they  were  personally 
holy;  for  such  a  state  is  noway  connected  with 
the  moral  character  of  the  parent.  It  could  be 
of  no  consequence  whether  the  parents  believed 
or  not;  they  were  by  nature  the  children  of 
wrath.  But  when  we  consider  them  holy,  in 
reference  to  their  parents,  it  must  be  considered 
in  view  of  the  promise  which  is  made  to  the 
children  of  pious  parents :  Acts  ii.  39,  xvi.  31 ; 
Gal.  iii.  16, 17 ;  Gen.  xvii.  7.  If  they  were  thus 
holy,  they  had  a  right  to  be  partakers  of  the 
promise  in  the  ordinance  of  baptism :  Acts  xvi. 
33.     Once  more : — 

"Moreover,  brethren,  I  would  not  have  you 
ignorant,  how  that  all  our  fathers  were  under 
the  cloud,  and  all  passed  through  the  sea ;  and 
were  all  baptized  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and 
in  the  sea;  and  did  all  eat  the  same  spiritual 
meat;  and  did  all  drink  the  same  spiritual 
drink;  for  they  drank  of  that  spiritual  rock 
that  followed  them:  and  that  rock  was  Christ." 
1  Cor.  X.  1-4. 

"Now  these  things  were  our  examples,'* 
(ver.  6.)  But  who  were  they  that  w^ere  baptized 
for  "our  examples"  ?  " Six  hundred  thousand 
on  foot  that  were  men,  besides  children,'*    Ex. 


BAPTIST   CONTROVERSY.  61 

xii.  37.  This  army  of  Israelites  who  were  "all 
baptized  unto  Moses  for  an  example"  to  the 
Christian  church  had  many  "children."  Here 
we  not  only  have  the  proof  that  the  children 
were  baptized,  but,  likewise,  that  it  was  done 
as  an  example  to  us. 

We  have  seen  that  baptism  came  in  the  stead 
of  circumcision,  and  that  God's  church  had 
children  in  it  from  the  days  of  Abraham,  upon 
divine  authoriti/,  and  that,  instead  of  depriving 
them  of  this  divine  right,  our  blessed  Lord  ex- 
pressly declares  them  to  be  the  subjects  of  his 
kingdom,  and  also  sanctions  the  reception  of 
them  in  his  name.  We  have  likewise  seen, 
that  when  the  Christian  church  was  fully  organ- 
ized under  the  new  dispensation,  the  pro- 
mise to  children  was  distinctly  renewed.  We 
have  also  seen  that  whole  families  were  bap- 
tized without  any  evidence  that  any  but  the 
parents  were  converted  or  consulted.  How 
can  we  escape  the  conclusion  that  infants  were 
baptized  by  the  apostles  in  the  name  of  Christ 
and  upon  his  authority  ? 

As  we  flatter  ourselves  that  we  have  esta- 
blished our  point,  we  shall  close  this  part  of  our 
subject  with  this  remark: — God  never  has  had 
a  church  since  the  days  of  Abraham,  in  heaven 
above  or  on  earth  below,  that  had  no  infants 
in  it;  nor  do  we  believe  he  ever  will.     When 

6 


62  ESSAYS    ON    THE 

we  sjDeak  of  God's  church,  we  do  not  mean  a 
sect.  We  are  aware  that  several  sects  not  only 
exclude  children  from  their  pale  and  from  the 
churchy  but  also  make  a  great  deal  of  sectarian 
noise  because  others  suffer  the  little  children  to 
come. 


ESSAY  V. 

OBJECTIONS   ANSWERED. 


We  propose  in  this  Essay  to  state  and  answer 
some  of  the  objections  most  commonly  urged 
against  infant  baptism. 

1.  Infants  cannot  believe;  therefore,  they  should 
not  he  baptized. 

Let  us  put  this  in  the  form  of  a  syllogism, 
thus : — 

Baptism  has  reference  to  faith ; 
But  infants  cannot  exercise  faith ; 
Therefore,  infants  should  not  be  baptized. 
This  argument  takes  for  granted  what  is  not 
true ; — that  is,  that  baptism  can  be  of  no  benefit 
till  the  subject  can  act  faith.      It  is  an  ad- 
vantage to  a  child  to  be  raised  up  under  church 
discipline,  and  should  be  esteemed  a  very  high 
privilege.     We  therefore  answer: — 


J 


BAPTIST    CONTROVERSY.  63 

Baptism  entitles  us  to  church  privileges ; 
Infants  need  such  privileges ; 
Therefore,  they  should  be  baptized. 
But  let  us  try  this  objection  on  a  kindred 
subject. 

Circumcision  is  a  seal  of  the  righteousness 
of  faith ; 

Infants  cannot  believe ; 
Therefore,  they  should  not  be  circumcised. 
But  if  we  do  not  take  care,  we  will  make  void 
the  commandments  of  God  by  our  reasoning. 
Again : — 

He  that  believeth  shall  be  saved ; 
Infants  cannot  believe ; 
Therefore,  they  cannot  be  saved. 
Again : — 

He  that  will  not  work  should  not  eat; 
But  infants  cannot  work ; 
Therefore,  they  should  not  eat. 
This  shows  the  force  of  all  such  objections, 
and  need  not  be  pursued. 

2.  It  is  objected  that  infant  baptism  deprives 
our  children  of  the  right  of  choosing  what  de- 
nomination they  will  join. 

To  this  we  reply,  that  those  who  have  been 
baptized  can  make  as  judicious  and  as  free  a 
choice  as  those  who  have  not.  Baptism  does 
not  take  away  their  understanding,  nor  does 
it  deprive  them  of  Christian  liberty.     It  is  very 


64  ESSAYS    ON   THE 

easy  to  run  away  with  the  idea  of  the  supposed 
right  of  choosing.  Will  any  one  contend  that 
our  children  have  a  right  to  choose  before  they 
are  cajmble  of  judging  between  truth  and  error? 
Do  any  take  more  pains  to  prepossess  their 
children  in  favor  of  their  own  sectarian  dog- 
mas than  the  Baptists  do  ?  Everybody  knows 
that,  when  parents  wish  to  proselyte  their  chil- 
dren to  their  own  sectarian  views,  they  never 
think  of  relying  upon  their  baptism,  but  upon 
a  different  thing.  Moreover,  the  child  is  not 
by  its  baptism  constituted  a  member  of  any 
sect.  It  does  connect  him  with  the  catholic  or 
general  church,  but  not  with  any  particular 
sect.  But  suppose  it  did ;  does  it  follow,  there- 
fore, that  children  should  be  taught  to  consider 
themselves  as  having  nothing  to  do  vnth  the 
religion  of  the  gospel.  Are  they  to  think  only? 
Or  are  they  to  act  P 

We  are  required  to  "^^  train  up  our  children 
iri  the  way  they  shoidd  go :  and  when  they  are  old 
they  will  not  depart  from  it.''  Prov.  xxii.  6.  By 
this  we  learn  that  parents  and  guardians  are  to 
choose  the  loay  in  which  children  are  to  go,  and 
train  them  up  in  it.  But  if  we  train  up  our 
children  in  any  way,  w^e  must  first  put  them  in 
thai  'way  before  we  can  so  train  them.  The 
church  is  the  school  of  Christ,  in  which  our 
minds  are  to  be  disciplined  to  the  service  of 


BAPTIST   CONTROVERSY.  65 

the  Lord.  If  we  would  train  our  children  to 
serve  God,  w^here  could  we  train  them  better 
than  in  his  church?  Where  can  they  labor 
better  than  in  the  Lord's  vineyard  ?  If  early 
habits  have  an  almost  omnipotent  control  over 
us  in  after-life,  is  it  not  of  great  importance 
that  we  should  endeavor  to  have  as  many  reli- 
gious habits  formed  in  childhood  as  possible  ? 
But  where  can  children  learn  this  sort  of  habit 
so  readily  as  in  the  church  ?  We  might  as  well 
argue  against  the  teaching  of  children  indus- 
trious habits  that  they  may  get  along  in  the 
world,  as  to  argue  against  teaching  them  reli- 
gious habits  that  they  may  be  prepared  for  the 
world  to  come.  To  train  up  a  child  in  idle- 
ness in  regard  to  domestic  affairs  is  to  prepare 
him  to  be  a  vagabond  in  human  society.  If  a 
child  be  trained  in  a  total  neglect  of  religion, 
he  is  apt  to  live  a  wicked  life  and  die  in  his 
sins. 

3.  It  is  objected  that  it  does  a  child  no  good 
to  baptize  it ;  therefore,  it  should  not  be  bap- 
tized. 

To  which  we  might  reply  that  it  does  them 
as  much  good  as  it  does  an  adult;  but  this 
would  be  to  answer  one  assertion  with  another. 
Let  us,  therefore,  examine  the  case  carefully 
and  in  the  light  of  God's  word.  To  object  to 
infant  baptism  is  to  object  to  infant  religion^  as 


66  ESSAYS   ON   THE 

I  understand  it,  unless  we  intend  our  children 
to  be  Quakers.  I  understand  the  objections 
of  our  Baptist  brethren  to  be  against  infant 
religion  as  much  or  more  than  against  infant 
baptism.  They  object,  as  we  understand  them, 
to  the  Quakers  as  much  as  to  us.  The  Quakers 
connect  their  children  with  religious  duty 
^vithout  baptism,  and  we  by  baptism.  Then, 
if  we  mistake  not,  the  objections  are  not  so 
much  to  their  being  baptized  as  to  their  being 
religious.  All  must  admit,  who  admit  baptism 
at  all,  that,  if  children  may  be  religious,  they, 
by  necessary  consequence,  may  be  baptized. 
If  one  child  has  ever  been  religious,  that  one 
demonstrates  that  the  thing  is  possible.  John 
THE  Baptist  ivas  ''filled  ivith  the  Holy  Ghost  from 
his  birth,''  Luke  i.  15.  "And  the  hand  of  the 
Lord  was  with  him,"  (verse  66.)  "And  the 
child  grew,  and  w^axed  strong  in  spirit,"  (verse 
80.)  Thus,  it  appears  that  the  only  baptism  ever 
received  by  John  the  Baptist  was  received  in 
infancy.  Strange,  that  a  sect  who  claim  to  be 
descended  from  this  same  John  should  deny 
infant  baptism  altogether!  John  would  be 
everyway  disqualilied  to  take  the  sacrament 
with  modern  Baptists :  for  he  was  never  bap- 
tized, only  in  his  infancy,  w^iich  they  say  is  no 
baptism  at  all ;  and  even  then  he  was  not  im- 
mersed.    How  could  they  give  him  the  sacra- 


BAPTIST    CONTROVERSY.  67 

ment  of  the  Supper?  If  John  were  to  come 
down  from  heaven,  everybody  knows  where  he 
would  have  to  go  for  the  holy  communion. 
They  know  where,  too,  he  could  not  get  it. 

If  it  can  be  proven  that  a  child  ever  did  serve 
God,  then  is  it  proven  that  the  service  of  God 
is  suitable  for  children.  "And  the  child  did 
minister  unto  the  Lord  before  Eli  the  priest." 
1  Sam.  ii.  11.  "And  the  child  was  young." 
1  Sam.  i.  24.  The  age  of  Samuel  is  supposed 
to  have  been  three  years  when  he  commenced 
the  service  of  God.  At  any  rate,  it  was  when 
his  mother  weaned  him.  Of  this  child  his 
mother  said,  "  I  will  give  him  unto  the  Lord 
all  the  days  of  his  life."  1  Sam.  i.  11.  "  Then  I 
will  bring  him,  that  he  may  appear  before  the 
Lord,  and  there  abide  forever."  1  Sam.  i.  22. 

The  lesson  to  be  learned  from  the  history  of 
Samuel  is,  that  his  mother  dedicated  him  to 
God  even  before  his  birth,  and  God  made  him 
one  of  the  most  eminent  of  all  the  prophets. 
Our  faith  in  the  promise  made  to  our  children 
(Acts  ii.  39)  should  be  greatly  strengthened  from 
the  success  of  Hannah  with  her  little  Samuel. 
If  God  blessed  her  son  on  account  of  her  piety 
in  giving  him  to  the  Lord,  so  will  he  bless 
mine,  and  yours,  and  all  who  may  be  thus 
piously  given  to  him. 

We  might  enumerate  many  such  objections; 


68  ESSAYS    ON   THE 

but,  really,  it  is  a  small   business.      But   one 
more  will  be  noticed : — 

4.  Baptism  entitles  those  who  are  baptized, 
infants  as  Avell  as  adults,  to  the  sacrament  of 
the  Lord's  Supper.  Mr.  Howell,  a  late  Baptist 
writer,  thus  reproaches  us  on  this  subject: — 

"  We  most  cheerfully  sit  down  at  the  table 
of  the  Lord  with  all  those,  if  they  have  not 
forfeited  their  claims  by  heresy  or  immorality, 
whom  we  believe  to  be  baptized.  Do  our 
pedobaptist  brethren  act  with  the  same  libe- 
rality? Yeiy  far  from  it.  Their  public  pro- 
fessions would  lead  us  to  conclude  that  this  is 
their  practice,  but  when  brought  to  the  point 
they  positively  refuse  !  Is  proof  of  this  state- 
ment needed  ?  I  ask,  then,  do  they  not  believe 
their  infants  are  baptized?  Most  certainly. 
Are  they  either  heretical  or  immoral  ?  i^either 
is  pretended.  Do  they  commune  with  them  ? 
Ko,  never.  Thus  they  at  once  exclude  two-thirds 
of  the  members  of  their  own  churches  from 
the  Lord's  table!"  (Sacramental  Communion, 
page  265.) 

All  this  depends  on  the  assumption  that  all 
who  have  been  baptized  are  entitled  to  the 
sacrament  of  the  Supper.  Although  Mr.  H. 
works  this  assumption  on  our  infant  mem- 
bers, yet  he  furnishes  in  almost  the  same 
breath  the  proof  that  he  himself  holds  that 


BAPTIST    CONTROVERSY.  69 

Bometliing  else  is  necessary.  According  to 
the  above  extract,  he  can  commune  with  bap- 
tized persons  "?/  they  have  not  forfeited  their 
claim  by  heresy  or  immorality.'''  Then  Mr. 
Howell  would  exclude  baptized  adults,  under 
certain  circumstances,  from  the  holy  commu- 
nion. IN'ow,  we  exclude  baptized  infants  from 
the  communion  because  they  are  not  capable 
of  doing  it  in  remembrance  of  Christ.  In 
this  we  follow  the  example  the  Lord  set  us  in 
regard  to  the  Passover.  He  was  circumcised 
the  eighth  day,  which  entitled  him  to  that 
feast,  as  much  as  baptism  can  to  the  Supper, 
yet  he  attended  no  such  feast  until  he  was 
twelve  years  old.  Luke  ii.  41, 42.  Though  we 
were  to  admit  that  all  wdio  approach  the  holy 
communion  must  be  baptized,  it  does  not  fol- 
low that  all  who  are  baptized  should  commune. 
There  is  nothing  in  this,  therefore,  against  in- 
fant baptism. 


ESSAY  VI. 

ON  THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  PRIMITIVE  FATHERS 
IN  FAVOR  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

Our  argument,  thus  far,  has  sought  no  other 
evidence  of  infant  baptism,  as  a  Christian  in- 
stitution, than  the  Holy  Scriptures.     In   this 


70  ESSAYS    ON    THE 

Essay  we  shalf  attempt  to  show  that  it  was  in 
universal  use  during  the  second,  third,  and 
fourth  centuries,  no  one  objecting.  We  may 
remark  that  no  serious  opposition  was  ever 
made,  so  far  as  we  can  learn,  to  the  validity 
of  infant  baptism,  until  the  twelfth  century. 
If  there  was,  who  made  it  ?  Will  our  oppo- 
nents answer  ?  We  do  not  quote  the  fathers 
for  any  other  purpose  than  to  show  what  was 
the  practice  of  the  church  in  their  day.  If  the 
practice  was  universal  in  the  second  and  third 
centuries,  it  is  worthy  of  our  consideration. 

Justin  Martyr,  who  wrote  about  forty  years 
after  the  death  of  St.  John,  says : — 

"We  also,  who  by  him  have  had  access  to 
God,  have  not  received  this  carnal  circum- 
cision, but  the  spiritual  circumcision  which 
Enoch,  and  those  like  him,  observed.  And  we 
have  received  it  by  baptism,  by  the  mercy  of 
God,  because  we  were  sinners :  and  it  is  en- 
joined upon  all  persons  to  receive  it  in  the 
same  way."     Again: — 

"We  are  circumcised  by  baptism  with 
Christ's  circumcision."  (Dialogue  with  Try- 
pho,  a  Jew.)     Again  : — 

"Many  persons  among  us,  of  sixtu  and  seventy 
years  old,  of  both  sexes,  who  were  discipled  to 
Christ  in  their  childhood,  do  continue  uncor- 
rupted."     (Apologia  Prima.) 


BAPTIST    CONTROVERSY.  71 

It  is  quite  clear  that  this  father  believed  bap- 
tism had  taken  the  place  of  circumcision,  and 
that,  like  circumcision,  it  was  to  be  used  in 
childhood^  with  the  exception,  it  was  to  be  ap- 
plied to  ''both  sexes." 

Let  it  be  remembered  that  we  do  not  intro- 
duce Justin  to  prove  the  validity  of  infant  bap- 
tism, but  to  show  the  antiquity  of  the  custom, 
that  our  readers  may  consider  for  themselves 
where  and  from  whom  the  practice  was  de- 
rived.    A  few  things  we  will  notice : — 

Justin  wrote  within  forty  3'ears  of  St.  John, 
and  was  converted  some  eight  or  ten  years 
previous  to  the  time  of  his  writing.  He  was 
so  near  the  apostolic  times  as  to  make  it  diffi- 
cult to  see  how  he  could  speak  in  truth  of 
'''many  persons  sixty  and  seventy  years  old,  of  both 
sexes,  who  were  discipled  to  Christ  in  their  child- 
hood,'' without  making  it  certain  that  these  old 
disciples  were  baptized  from  twenty  to  thirty 
years  before  the  death  of  St.  John ;  and  tJiai  in 
their  childhood.  It  is  likewise  difficult  to  ac- 
count for  his  calling  baptism  Christ's  circum- 
cision, at  that  early  period,  without  believing 
that  the  apostles  had  taught  them  that  baptism 
had  taken  the  place  of  that  ordinance ;  in 
which  case,  infant  baptism  must  follow  as  mat- 
ter of  course.  Well  might  Origen,  who  was 
born  A.  D.  185,  about  eighty-five  years  after  the 


72  ESSAYS   ON  THE 

death  of  St.  John,  say  "  the  church  received  from 
the  aioostles  a  tradition  even  to  give  baptism  to  in- 
fants.'' (Comment  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans.) 

That  infant  baptism  was  in  use  at  the  time 
Justin  wrote  there  is  not,  we  think,  a  reason- 
able doubt.  It  was  done  either  in  obedience 
to  the  teaching  of  the  inspired  apostles,  or 
was  a  human  invention,  introduced  at  that 
early  period,  by  which  that  teaching  was  made 
void.  But  if  it  be  a  human  invention,  as  mo- 
dern Baptists  constantly  insist,  this  invention 
was  introduced  from  twenty  to  thirty  years 
before  the  death  of  the  beloved  disciple,  John. 
"VVhy  is  it  then  that  we  have  nothing  against  it 
from  any  writer  of  those  times  ?  Justin  ^vi'ote 
about  the  year  140.  He  spake  of  some,  seventy 
years  old,  who  had  been  baptized  in  infancy  or 
childhood.  Then,  in  this  historical  fact,  we 
are  compelled  to  date  infant  baptism  as  early 
as  A.  D.  70, — twenty-six  years  before  John  ^Tote 
the  book  of  Revelation  ;  twenty  years  before 
the  writing  of  his  three  Epistles ;  four  years 
after  the  writing  of  the  Epistles  of  Jude,  2  Pe- 
ter, and  2  Timothy ;  ^yq  years  after  1  Timothy, 
and  the  Epistle  to  Titus ;  six  years  after  the 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  Philippians,  Colos- 
sians,  Philemon,  and  the  Hebrews ;  and  only 
ten  years  after  the  Epistle  to  Romans,  2  Corin- 


BAPTIST   CONTROVERSY.  73 

thians,  as  well  as  the  Epistle  of  James  and 
1  Peter.  We  may  also  remark,  as  John  wrote 
the  Gospel  about  a.  d.  97  or  98,  that  infant 
baptism  must  have  been  in  practice  twenty- 
seven  or  twenty-eight  years  before  that  period. 
If  so,  is  it  unnatural  to  believe  it  had  apostolic 
sanction  ?  We  may  rest  assured,  if  the  apostles 
were  as  zealous  against  infant  baptism  as  mo- 
dern Baptists  are,  they  would  have  made  the 
stoutest  opposition  to  it.  'Naj,  we  would  have 
heard  this,  in  the  book  of  Revelation,  ranked 
with  the  doctrine  of  the  Nicolaitanes,  which 
thing  the  Lord  hates.  Is  it  probable  that  John 
would  have  made  no  mention  of  this  innova- 
tion, even  in  his  Gospel,  when  it  had  been  in 
existence  twenty-eight  years,  if  he  had  been 
as  hostile  to  it  as  some  of  the  moderns  are  ? 
Now,  according  to  Justin,  the  church  baptized 
children  thirty  years  before  the  death  of  St. 
John.  Why  did  that  holy  apostle  never  op- 
pose it  ?  This  is  a  question  the  Baptists  will 
not  answer.  There  may  be  some  who  question 
the  veracity  of  Justin,  as  he  was  not  a  Baptist, 
and,  therefore,  incapable  of  giving  testimony 
against  Mr.  Howell's  old  church,  which,  he 
says,  is  1800  years  old.  This  Justin  must  have 
been  a  sincere  man,  as  he  proved  his  sincerity 
by  his  martyrdom.  If  Justin  told  the  truth, 
here    is    pedobaptism    in    the    days    of   the 


74  ESSAYS    ON    THE 

apostles  without  opposition.  We  shall  pro- 
ceed to  show  that  shortly  after  we  have  others 
bearing  important  testimony. 

Irenaeus  was  born  about  the  time  of  the  death 
of  John,  in  the  same  country  where  the  Evan- 
gelist died.  He  was  well  acquainted  with  the 
sainted  Polycarp,  Bishop  of  Smyrna  in  Asia, 
according  to  Eusebius ;  and  the  same  that  St. 
John  calls  the  Angel  of  the  church  in  Smyrna. 
Eusebius  (Ecclesiastical  History,  book  iv.  chap. 
14)  represents  Irenseus  as  giving  the  following 
account  of  Polycarp : — 

"And  Polycarp,  a  man  who  had  been  in- 
structed by  the  apostles,  and  had  familiar  inter- 
course with  many  that  had  seen  Christ,  and 
also  been  appointed  bishop  by  the  apostles  in 
Asia,  in  the  church  at  Smyrna,  whom  we  also 
have  seen  in  our  youth,  for  he  lived  a  long 
time  and  to  a  very  advanced  age,  when,  after 
a  glorious  and  most  distinguished  martyrdom, 
he  departed  this  life.  He  always  taught  what 
he  had  learned  from  the  apostles,  what  the 
church  had  handed  down,  and  what  is  the  only 
tnie  doctrine." 

This  is  the  Polycarp  who,  at  his  martyrdom, 
when  the  governor  urged  him  to  revile  Christ, 
replied,  ''Eighty  and  six  years  have  I  served 
him,  and  he  never  did  me  wrong ;  and  how  can 


BAPTIST    CONTROVERSY.  75 

I  now  blaspheme  my  King  that  has  saved  me?" 
(Eusebius,  book  iv.  chap.  15.) 

Eusebius  (book  v.  chap,  xx)  records  a  letter 
Irenseus  addressed  to  Florinus,  in  which  Ire- 
naeus  thus  speaks  of  Poly  carp  and  himself: — 

"For  I  saw  thee,  when  I  was  yet  a  boy,  in  the 
Lower  Asia  with  Polycarp,  moving  in  great 
splendor  at  court,  and  endeavoring  by  all 
means  to  gain  his  esteem.  I  remember  the 
events  of  those  times  much  better  than  those 
of  more  recent  occurrence.  As  the  studies  of 
our  youth  growing  with  our  minds  unite  with 
it  so  firmly  that  I  can  tell  also  the  very  place 
w^here  the  blessed  Polycai-p  was  accustomed  to 
sit  and  discourse ;  and  also  his  entrances,  his 
w^alks,  the  complexion  of  his  life  and  the  form 
of  his  body,  and  his  conversations  with  the 
people,  and  his  familiar  intercourse  with  John, 
as  he  was  accustomed  to  tell,  as  also  his  fami- 
liarity with  those  that  had  seen  the  Lord. 
How  also  he  used  to  relate  their  discourses, 
and  what  things  he  had  heard  from  them  con- 
cerning the  Lord.  Also,  concerning  his  mira- 
cles, his  doctrine ;  all  these  were  told  by  Poly- 
carp, in  consistency  with  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
as  he  had  received  them  from  the  eye-witnesses 
of  the  doctrine  of  salvation.  These  things,  by 
the  mercy  of  God,  and  the  opportunity  then 
afforded  me,  I  atteMtively  heard^  noting  down,  not 


76  ESSAYS   ON   THE 

on  paper,  but  in  my  heart;  and  these  same  facts 
I  am  always  in  the  habit,  by  the  grace  of  God, 
to  recall  faithfully  to  mind.'' 

The  reader  knows  now  enough  of  Irenasus, 
the  Bishop  of  Lyons,  to  appreciate  the  follow- 
ing declaration  in  favor  of  infant  baptism  : — 

"  For  he  came  to  save  all  persons  by  himself: 
all,  I  say,  who  by  him  are  regenerated  to  God; 
infants  and  little  ones,  and  children,  and  youth, 
and  elder  persons."  (Second  book  against 
heresies.) 

Where  this  father  speaks  of  infants,  little 
ones,  and  children  being  regenerated  to  God, 
he  means  they  were  baptized  to  God.  A  mul- 
titude of  quotations  might  be  brought  forward 
to  prove  that  the  fathers  were  accustomed  to 
use  baptism  and  regeneration  as  meaning  the 
same  thing.     We  shall  introduce  but  one. 

Justin  Martyr,  in  his  first  Apology,  has  the 
following : — 

"We  bring  them  to  some  place  where  there 
is  water,  and  they  are  regenerated  by  the  same 
way  of  regeneration  by  which  we  were  regene- 
rated;  for  they  are  ivashed  with  writer  in  the 
name  of  God  the  Father  and  Lord  of  all  things, 
and  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the 
Holy  Sjnrit.'' 

What  Irenseus  says  does  not  prove  that  in- 
fant baptism  is  right,  for  he  was  not  inspired : 


BAPTIST    CONTROVERSY.  77 

but  it  does  prove  that  it  was  in  use  in  his  day ; 
and,  although  he  wrote  against  heresy,  he  did 
not  write  against  infant  baptism  ;  nor  did  any 
other  in  those  times  write  against  it,  which 
they  most  assuredly  would  if  they  had  been 
opposed  to  it.  "What  the  reader  will  please 
remember  is  that  Polycarp  was  the  disciple  of 
St.  John,  and  Irenseus  the  disciple  of  Polycarp. 
As  to  the  probability  of  his  being  in  error,  every 
one  will  form  his  own  opinion. 

Origen,  w^ho  was  born  a.  d.  185,  about  eighty- 
five  years  after  the  apostle  John,  says : — 

"Besides  all  this,  let  it  be  considered  what 
is  the  reason  that,  whereas  the  baptism  of  the 
church  is  given  for  forgiveness  of  sins,  infants 
also,  according  to  the  usage  of  the  church,  are 
ha])tized;  when,  if  there  were  nothing  in  in- 
fants that  wanted  forgiveness  and  mercy,  the 
grace  of  baptism  would  be  superfluous  to 
them."     (Eighth  homily  on  Leviticus.) 

'^Infants  are  baptized  for  the  remission  of 
sins.  Of  what  sins?  Or  when  have  they 
sinned  ?  Or  how  can  any  reason  of  the  laver 
in  their  case  hold  good  but  according  to  that 
sense  we  mentioned  even  now: — ^None  is  free 
from  pollution,  though  his  life  be  but  the 
length  of  a  single  day  upon  the  earth'  ?"  (Ho- 
mily on  Luke.) 

"  For  this  the  church  received  from  the  apostles 

7* 


78  ESSAYS    ON    THE 

a  tradition  even  to  give  baptism  to  infants.  For 
they  to  whom  the  divine  mysteries  were  com- 
mitted knew  that  there  is  in  all  persons  the 
natural  pollution  of  sin,  which  ynitst  he  done  away 
hy  water  ayid  the  Spirit.''  (Comment  on  Ep.  to 
the  Eomans.) 

Eusebius,  who  WTote  in  the  fourth  century, 
informs  us  that  Origen  was  '•'  conversant  with 
the  Holy  Scriptures  even  when  a  child.  He 
had  been  considerably  trained  in  them  by  his 
father,  who,  besides  the  study  of  the  liberal 
sciences,  had  also  carefully  stored  his  mind 
Avith  these."     (Book  vi.  chap.  2.) 

The  same  author  informs  us  of  the  martyr- 
dom of  his  father  when  he  was  about  seven- 
teen years  old.  Some  have  alleged  that  his 
grandfather  and  great-grandfather  were  Chris- 
tians. How  this  may  be  we  pretend  not  to 
know.  It  is,  however,  well  established  that  he 
was  raised  a  Christian.  He  is  considered  on 
man}^  accounts  among  the  most  eminent  of  the 
fathers.  When  he  tells  us  that  "^Ae  church 
received  from  the  aj^ostles  a  tradition  to  give  bap- 
tism to  infants,''  although  we  admit  that  this 
does  not  necessarily  prove  that  it  did  so  receive 
it,  yet  it  must  prove  that  Origen  thought  so.  As 
to  the  probability  of  his  being  mistaken,  every 
one  has  a  right  to  his  own  opinion.  The 
reader  will  bear  in   mind   that  Origen   never 


BAPTIST    CONTROVERSY.  79 

bad  any  controversy  on  the  subject  of  infant 
baptism,  nor  did  any  one  in  his  day;  his 
declaration  is  therefore  to  be  understood  as 
voluntary,  and  also  as  being  the  general  opi- 
nion of  the  church  in  his  day.  Is  it  probable 
that  the  whole  church  was  deceived  on  this 
point  within  two  hundred  years  from  the  death 
of  Christ? 

Origen  tells  us  with  whom  infant  baptism 
originated.  K  he  does  not  tell  the  truth  about  it, 
will  the  Baptists  give  us  the  true  account  ?  Mr. 
Howell,  can  you  tell  us  how  the  eighteen-hun- 
dred-years'  old  Baptist  church  came  to  have 
pedobaptism  in  it  from  the  times  of  the  apostles, 
nem  con.,  to  the  days  of  Peter  de  Bruis?  But 
Mr.  Howell  has  said  one  truth,  (Sac.  Com.  p. 
202 :)  "Testimonies  proving  that  "^  *  the  church 
considered  baptism  essential  to  salvation 
abound  everywhere."  But  there  is  doubt 
about  the  following,  (pp.  202,  203 :)  "  This  error 
originated  two  others  equally  egregious.  The 
former  was  the  administration  of  haiotism  to  in- 
fants in  cases  of  danger  of  death."  "The 
latter  error  was  substitution  of  a  more  agree- 
able form  than  immersion." 

IS'ow,  that  the  error  of  which  Mr.  Howell 
speaks — namely,  the  considering  of  baptism 
necessary  to  salvation— did  exist  in  the  second 
and  third  centuries,  no   one   doubts,     ^or  is 


80  ESSAYS   ON   THE 

there  any  reason  to  doubt  that  such  error  would 
lead  to  superstition  in  various  ways.  But  that 
this  error  ''originated''  the  administration  of 
baptism  to  infants  in  or  out  of  the  danger  of 
death,  is  what  no  living  man  can  prove.  Mr. 
H.  does  not — he  dare  not — try  to  prove  it  other- 
wise than  by  broad  assertion,  at  which  he  is 
good — very  good.  Mr.  H.  evidently  intends  to 
produce  the  impression  that  infant  baptism  at 
first  was  only  administered  to  such  as  were 
sick,  though  he  does  not  directly  say  so. 
Reckless  as  he  frequently  is,  he  dare  not  say  so. 

As  to  whether  this  error  "originated"  "a 
more  agreeable  form  than  immersion,"  we 
shall  consider  in  a  future  essay. 

We  will  now  lay  before  the  public  the  an- 
swer of  the  Council  at  Carthage  to  a  letter 
addressed  to  that  body  by  Fidus.  This  coun- 
cil was  composed  of  sixty-six  bishops,  and  con- 
vened A.  D.  253,  a  little  more  than  two  hun- 
dred years  from  the  crucifixion,  and  about  one 
hundred  and  fifty  years  from  the  death  of  St. 
John. 

The  following  is  the  answer : — 

"  Cyprian,  and  the  rest  of  the  bishops  who 
are  present  at  the  council,  in  number  sixty-six, 
to  Fidus,  our  brother,  greeting : 

"  We  read  your  letter,  most  esteemed  brother, 
in  which  you  write  of  one  Victor,  a  priest,  &c. 


BAPTIST    CONTROVERSY.  81 

But  to  the  case  of  infants : — Wliereas  you  judge 
*  that  they  must  not  be  baptized  within  two  or 
three  days  after  they  are  born,  and  that  the 
rule  of  circumcision  is  to  be  observed,  so  that 
none  should  be  baptized  and  sanctified  before 
the  eighth  day  after  he  is  born,'  we  were  all  in 
our  assembly  of  a  contrary  opinion.  For,  as  for 
what  you  thought  fitting  to  be  done,  there  was 
not  one  that  was  of  your  mind ;  but  all  of  us,  on 
the  contrary,  judged  that  the  grace  and  mercii  of 
God  is  to  he  denied  to  no  person  that  is  horn.  For 
whereas  our  Lord,  in  his  gospel,  says,  'The 
Son  of  man  came  not  to  destroy  men's  souls, 
but  to  save  them,'  as  far  as  lies  in  us,  no  soul, 
if  possible,  is  to  be  lost.  So  that  we  judge  that 
no  person  is  to  be  hindered  from  obtaining  the 
grace  by  the  law  that  is  now  appointed,  and 
that  the  spiritual  circumcision  ought  not  to  be 
impeded  by  the  circumcision  that  was  accord- 
ing to  the  flesh,  but  that  all  are  to  be  admitted 
to  the  grace  of  Christ ;  since  Peter,  speaking  in 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  says,  '  The  Lord  has 
shown  me  that  no  person  is  to  be  called  com- 
mon or  unclean.' 

"K  any  thing  could  be  an  obstacle  to  per- 
sons against  their  obtaining  the  grace,  the 
adult,  and  grown,  and  aged  would  be  rather 
hindered  by  their  more  grievous  sins.  K, 
then,  the   greatest  offenders,  and  those  that 


82  ESSAYS   ON  THE 

have  grievously  sinned  against  God  before, 
have,  when  they  afterward  come  to  beheve, 
forgiveness  of  their  sins,  and  no  person  is  pro- 
hibited from  baptism  and  grace,  how  much  less 
reason  is  there  to  refuse  an  infant,  who,  being 
newly  born,  has  no  sin  save  that,  being  de- 
scended from  Adam  according  to  the  flesh,  he 
has  from  his  very  birth  contracted  the  contagion 
of  the  death  anciently  threatened,  who  comes 
for  this  reason  more  easily  to  receive  the  for- 
giveness of  sins,  because  they  are  not  his  own, 
but  others'  sins  that  are  forgiven  him ! 

"  This,  therefore,  most  esteemed  brother,  was 
our  opinion  in  the  assembly : — that  it  is  not  for 
us  to  hinder  any  person  from  baptism  and  the 
grace  of  God  who  is  merciful  and  kind  and 
affectionate  to  all.  Which  rule,  as  it  is  to 
govern  universally,  so  we  think  it  more  espe- 
cially to  be  observed  in  reference  to  infants  and 
persons  newly  born ;  to  whom  our  help  and 
the  divine  mercy  is  rather  to  be  granted,  because, 
by  their  weeping  and  wailing  at  their  first  en- 
terance  into  the  world,  they  do  intimate  nothing 
so  much  as  that  they  implore  compassion. 

"Dearest  brother,  we  wish  you  always  good 
health."     (Cyprian's  epistle  to  Fidus.) 

If  we  had  introduced  this  epistle  to  settle 
matters  of  opinion,  it  would  settle  several,  so 
far  as  such  a  General  Conference  of  Arminians, 


BAPTIST   CONTROVERSY.  83 

as  they  undoubtedly  were,  could  settle  them. 
But  in  it  we  have  the  unanimous  consent  of 
sixty-six  bishops  to  infant  baptism.  This  is  the 
fact  we  wish  to  establish, — namely,  that  in  two 
hundred  years  after  Christ  the  practice  was 
universal,  no  one  disputing  its  validity.  Fidus 
had  nothing  to  say  against  its  validity.  He 
only  wished  to  prohibit  them  till  they  were 
eight  days  old.  l!^ot  an  hour  longer.  Another 
fact  in  the  case  is  this : — this  council  founded 
their  argument  in  favor  of  the  right  of  infants 
to  baptism  from  their  birth  upon  their  right  to 
salvation  in  the  Redeemer.  In  whatever  else 
they  were  wrong,  they  were  right  in  this.  "  The 
promise  is  unto  you  and  to  your  children. ' '  "  For 
of  such  is  theTvingdom  of  God." 

"We  would  hazard  nothing  in  asserting  that 
not  the  first  scrape  of  the  pen  can  be  found 
against  the  validity  of  infant  baptism  while  the 
doctrine  of  a  general  atonement  was  the  doctrine 
of  the  whole  church,  which  was  the  case  until 
after  the  above  council,  ^ay,  the  doctrine  of 
a  partial  atonement  was  taught  centuries  before 
much  opposition  was  made  to  infant  baptism. 
One  followed  the  other  in  process  of  time. 
Men  will  have  their  own  opinion  as  to  the  con- 
nection between  the  two.  If  I  believed  there 
were  non-elect  infants,  I  would  join  the  Baptists 
at  once.     At  any  rate,  I  would  reject  infant  bap- 


84  ESSAYS   ON  THE 

tism.  Not  being  of  this  faith,  I  shall  not  only 
consider  our  children  fit  subjects  for  the  king- 
dom of  heaven, — i.  e.  the  church, — but  also  a 
proper  model  after  which  to  fashion  adults. 

Passing  many  of  the  primitive  fathers,  all  to 
the  same  purpose  with  those  already  noticed, 
we  will  make  some  extracts  from  St.  Austin, 
or  St.  Augustin,  (as  he  is  called  by  both  names,) 
with  but  little  comment.  He  lived  about  three 
hundred  years  after  the  apostles,  and  no  doubt 
sets  forth  the  universal  practice  in  his  day.  He 
says: — ^'So  that  many  persons,  increasing  in 
knowledge  after  their  baptism,  and  especially 
those  who  have  been  baptized  either  lohen  they 
were  infants,  or  when  they  were  youths,"  &c. 

Again: — 

"And  as  the  thief,  who,  by  necessity,  went 
without  baptism,  was  saved,  because  by  his 
piety  he  had  it  spiritually  ;  so,  where  baptism  is 
had,  though  the  party  by  necessity  go  without 
that  which  the  thief  had,  yet  he  is  saved; 
which,  being  handed  down  to  them,  the  uni- 
versal church  holds  with  respect  to  infants  who  are 
baptized,  who  certainly  cannot  yet  believe  with 
the  heart  to  righteousness  or  confess  with  the 
mouth  to  salvation,  as  the  thief  could ;  nay,  by 
their  crying  and  noise,  while  the  sacrament  is 
being    administered,    they   disturb    the    holy 


BAPTIST   CONTROVERSY.  85 

mysteries ;  and  yet  no  Christian  loill  say  they  are 
baptized  to  no  purpose." 

Had  there  been  any  such  Baptists  as  we  have 
in  these  times,  they  would  have  said  these  ciy- 
ing  children  were  baptized  to  no  purpose. 
There  being  "?zo  Christian''  that  would  say  so 
proves  there  were  none  such  in  being.  But 
we  continue  our  quotations. 

"And  if  any  one  do  ask  for  divine  authority 
in  this  matter,  though  that  which  the  universal 
church  practises,  which  has  not  been  instituted 
by  councils,  but  has  always  been  observed,  is 
most  justly  believed  to  be  nothing  else  than  a 
thing  delivered  by  the  authority  of  the  apostles, 
yet  we  may,  besides,  take  a  true  estimate  how 
much  the  sacrament  of  baptism  does  avail  in- 
fants, by  the  circumcision  which  God's  former 
people  received."  (Fourth  book  against  the 
Donatists;  Baptism.) 

Here  he  declares  the  authority  to  baptize  in- 
fants was  from  the  apostles.  "We  cannot  ques- 
tion the  sincerity  of  this  declaration.  The 
apostles  either  did  deliver  such  authority,  or 
St.  Austin  was  mistaken.  Concerning  this  we 
wdll  think  our  own  thoughts.     Again : — 

"The  whole  church  has  of  old  constantly 
held  baptized  infants  do  obtain  remission  of 
original  sin  by  the  baptism  of  Christ."  "For 
my  part,  I  do  not  remember  that  I  ever  heard  any 


86  ESSAYS    ON   THE 

other  thing  from  any  Christians  that  received 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  neither /romswc A 
as  were  in  the  Catholic  church,  nor  yet  from 
such  as  belonged  to  any  sect  or  schism.  I  do 
not  remember  that  /  ever  read  otherwise  in  ayiy 
writer  J  treating  of  these  matters,  that  followed 
the  canonical  Scriptures  or  did  mean  or  pretend 
80  to  do.'' 

Kow,  if  St.  Austin  never  heard  of  any  Chris- 
tian, Catholic,  sectarian,  schismatic,  nor  any 
writer  that  followed  or  pretended  to  follow  the 
Scriptures,  denying  infant  baptism,  there  must 
have  been  an  entire  new  class  of  all  these  come 
into  being  since  his  day.  For  no  writer  could 
say  such  things  in  the  present  day  without 
being  guilty  of  the  most  glaring  falsehood. 
!N'or  is  St.  Austin  the  only  one  who  bears  this 
sort  of  testimony.  Hear  Pelagius,  in  a  letter  to 
the  Bishop  of  Rome,  not  far  from  the  time  St. 
Austin  wrote : — 

He  says,  "Men  do  slander  me,  as  if  I  de- 
nied the  sacrament  of  baptism  to  infants,"  &c. 
Again,  "He  never  heard  even  an  impious  heretic 
who  would  affirm  this  concerning  infants." 
He  asks — 

"For  who  is  so  ignorant  of  the  reading  of 
the  evangelists  as  to  attempt  (not  to  say  to 
establish  this,  but)  to  speak  of  it  heedlessly,  or 
even  have  such  a  thought  ?    In  fine,  who  can 


BAPTIST   CONTROVERSY.  87 

be  so  impious  as  to  hinder  infants  from  being 
baptized,  and  born  again  in  Christ,  and  thus 
cause  them  to  miss  the  kingdom  of  heaven? 
since  our  Saviour  has  said  that  none  can  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  that  is  not  born 
again  of  water  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  Who  is 
there  so  impious  as  to  refuse  to  an  infant,  of 
what  age  soever,  the  common  redemption  of 
mankind,  and  to  hinder  him  that  is  born  to  an 
uncertain  life  from  being  born  again  to  an 
everlasting  and  certain  one  ?"  (Letter  to  Inno- 
cent, A.  D.  417.) 

We  might  have  added  many  more  quotations 
from  the  fathers,  all  going  to  show  what  the 
usage  of  the  church  during  the  first  four  hun- 
dred years  was;  but  it  is  thought  these  are 
sufficient.  If  infant  baptism  was  in  universal 
use  up  to  the  commencement  of  the  fifth  cen- 
tury, it  is  fair  to  conclude  that  the  usage  com- 
menced in  apostolic  times.  This  presumption 
is  much  stronger  when  we  consider  that  Irenseus, 
Epiphanius,  Philastrius,  St.  Austin,  and  Theo- 
doret,  all  wrote  historical  accounts  of  the  difierent 
sects  and  heresies  which  had  made  their  appear- 
ance in  those  times,  and  not  one  of  them  men- 
tions a  single  sect  or  heretic  that  denied  it, 
with  the  exception  of  an  impious  sect  that  de- 
nied baptism  altogether. 

It  may  not  be  amiss  to  make  a  remark  or 


88  ESSAYS   ON    THE 

two  about  Tertullian — the  only  one  that  even 
seems  to  write  against  it.  He  did  not,  how- 
ever, write  against  infant  baptism  any  more 
than  against  adult  baptism.  He  thought  it 
best  to  delay  baptism  till  old  age,  so  that  there 
would  be  less  danger  of  contracting  pollution 
after  baptism.  He  never  said  one  word  against 
the  validity  of  infant  baptism. 

Before  we  close  this  essay  we  w^ill  call  atten- 
tion to  what  we  believe  to  be  the  first  rejection 
of  infant  baptism.  This  took  place  about  a.  d. 
1128,  under  the  teaching  of  Peter  Bruis.  The 
ground  on  which  the  Petrobruisians  rejected 
infant  baptism  w^as,  that  all  infants  dying  in 
that  state  luere  lost,  and  should  not  therefore  be 
baptized.  It  is  not  very  strange  that  the  whole 
Christian  world  considered  it  an  entire  new 
doctrine.  We  quote  the  following  from  Mr. 
Hibbard,  on  infant  baptism,  p.  323,  which  he 
quotes  from  Wall's  History,  partii.  c.  vii.  sec.  5. 

"  Christ  sending  his  disciples  to  preach,"  say 
the  Petrobruisians,  ''says  in  the  gospel,  'Go  ye 
into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to 
every  creature.  He  that  believeth,  and  is  bap- 
tized, shall  be  saved ;  but  he  that  believeth  not 
shall  be  damned."  From  these  words  of  our 
Saviour  it  is  plain  that  none  can  be  saved  un- 
less he  believe  and  be  baptized : — that  is,  have 
both  Christian  faith  and  baptism.     For  not  one 


BAPTIST    CONTROVERSY.  89 

of  these,  but  both  together,  doth  save.  So  that 
infants,  though  they  be  by  you  baptized,  yet, 
since  by  reason  of  their  age  they  cannot  be- 
lieve, are  not  saved.  It  is,  therefore,  an  idle  and 
vain  thing  for  you  to  wash  persons  with  water, 
at  such  a  time  when  you  may  indeed  cleanse 
their  skin  from  dirt  in  a  carnal  manner,  but 
not  purge  their  souls  from  sin.  But  we  do 
stay  till  the  proper  time  of  faith ;  and  when  a 
person  is  capable  to  know  his  God  and  believe 
in  him,  then  we  do  (not,  as  you  charge  us, 
rebaptize  him,  but)  baptize  him.  For  he  is  to 
be  accounted  as  not  yet  baptized  who  is  not 
washed  with  that  baptism  by  which  sins  are 
done  away." 

The  Petrobruisians  give  a  very  effectual  argu- 
ment against  infant  baptism,  if  it  were  true ; 
— that  is,  the  impossibility  of  infant  salvation. 
K  they  could  not  be  saved,  then,  and  then  only, 
they  should  not  be  baptized.  But  since  the 
promise  is  made  to  children  as  well  as  adults, 
and  since  the  promise  is  to  be  realized  by  the 
use  of  means,  we  cannot  commence  the  use  of 
those  means  too  soon. 

This  Petrobruisian  heresy,  which  contains 
the  first  opposition  to  the  validity  of  infant 
baptism  left  upon  record  that  we  have  been 
able  to  find,  lasted  about  thirty  years,  and 
perished  under  the  authority  of  his  holiness. 

8* 


90  ESSAYS   ON   THE 

Nothing  more  was  beard  of  anti-pedobaptism 
till  about  the  year  1522,  the  time  the  Anabap- 
tists rose  in  Germany.  Since  that  date  we 
have  had  boasting,  wind,  and  rant.  "We  have 
opposition  sufficient  to  satisfy  all  who  desire 
such  things. 

We  have  now  gone  through  our  remarks 
upon  infant  baptism.  With  the  hope  of  having 
convinced  some  one  who  has  hitherto  wavered, 
we  dismiss  the  subject. 


ESSAY  vn. 


ON  THE   MEANING   OF   THE   WORD   BAPTISM,   AND 
THE   MODE. 

The  word  baptism  has  been  so  variously  de- 
fined by  theological  writers  that  the  Christian 
public  is  literally  bewildered.  Lexicographers, 
being  uninspired,  are  wholly  unable  to  settle 
the  controversy  that  continually  harasses  the 
church  in  the  present  day.  It  has,  therefore, 
been  left  to  the  critics,  who  have  found  as 
much  as  they  could  do  to  keep  up  with  one 
another,  without  trying  much  to  find  out  the 
real  truth  about  the  matter.  One  great  ob- 
stacle in  the  way  of  settling  this  controversy  is, 
that  most  of  those  who  engage  in  it  make  up 


BAPTIST   CONTROVERSY.  91 

no  particular  issue  upon  the  subject  itself,  but 
upon  the  whether  baj^UzOy  the  Greek  word  for 
baptism,  means  immersion  and  nothing  else. 
"Now,  these  criticisms  may  be  useful  to  some 
men,  but  we  object  to  making  them  the  main 
proof  We  object  to  it  more,  because  nine  out 
of  ten  of  those  who  surfeit  the  country  with 
their  Greek  know  really  very  little  about  that 
language.  In  the  present  day  there  are  many 
who  spit  Greek  on  their  congregations  that  do 
not  know  the  alphabet  of  that  language.  It  is 
to  be  feared  that,  even  among  those  critics 
w^ho  can  read  the  Greek  Testament,  there  is  a 
greater  desire  to  make  a  show  of  their  learning 
than  to  exhibit  the  truth. 

The  author  of  these  sheets  makes  no  great 
pretensions  to  learning.  But  learned  men 
will  allow  that  the  true  definition  of  any  word 
is  to  be  learned  by  ascertaining  the  use  writers 
and  speakers  have  made  of  it.  For  example, 
to  know  the  use  John  the  Baptist  made  of  the 
word  baptism,  you  have  to  examine  his  dis- 
courses, allusions,  kc.  in  which  he  has  used 
the  word;  and  so  of  any  other  writer  or 
speaker.  It  is  believed  that  such  investiga- 
tion can  be  more  easily  made  in  the  English 
translation,  if  not  more  correctly.  This  mil  be 
apparent  when  we  consider  that  the  word  bap- 
tism in  the  English  means  precisely  the  same 


92  ESSAYS    ON    THE 

that  baptizo  in  Greek  does.  If  baptizo  means 
to  immerse,  baptize  means  tlie  same  thing. 
The  very  same  argument  that  will  prove  the 
Greek  word  to  mean  immersion  will  prove 
the  English  to  mean  the  same  mode.  Why- 
then  carry  this  controversy  out  of  our  own 
language  ?  The  Bible  must  furnish  the  means 
of  ascertaining  the  sense  in  which  its  terms 
are  used.  This,  then,  being  God's  own  lexi- 
con, we  shall  consult  this  and  no  other.  Our 
Greek  lexicons,  some  of  them  made  by  infidels 
and  wicked  men,  furnish  every  sort  of  defini- 
tion of  baptism.  Some  of  these  definitions 
favor  our  views,  and,  as  such,  following  the  ex- 
ample of  others,  w^e  might  use  them.  But  we 
desire  none  of  their  man-made  assistance.  If 
we  cannot  ascertain  from  the  Bible  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  baptism,  it  must  be  a  failure : — 
that's  all. 

When  the  Bible  uses  different  words  one 
for  another,  those  different  words  mean  the 
same  thing  and  mutually  explain  each  other. 
Allowing  this,  it  will  be  easy  to  show  that  bap- 
tism is  a  generic  word,  and  means  purification. 

This  we  proceed  to  prove.  "After  these 
things  came  Jesus  and  his  disciples  into  the 
land  of  Judea ;  and  there  he  tarried  with  them, 
and  baptized.  And  John  also  was  baptizing  in 
-^non,  near  to  Salim,  because  there  was  much 


BAPTIST   CONTROVERSY.  93 

water  there ;  and  they  came  and  were  baptized. 
For  John  was  not  yet  cast  into  prison.  Then 
there  arose  a  question  between  some  of  John's 
disciples  and  the  Jews  about  purifying.  And 
they  came  unto  John,  and  said  unto  him,  Eabbi, 
he  that  was  with  thee  beyond  Jordan,  to  whom 
thou  bearest  witness,  behold  the  same  baptizeih^ 
and  all  men  come  to  him."  John  iii.  22-26. 

"Wlien,  therefore,  the  Lord  knew  how  the 
Pharisees  had  heard  that  Jesus  made  and  baptized 
more  disciples  than  John,  (though  Jesus  himself 
baptized  not,  but  his  disciples,)  he  left  Judea, 
and  departed  again  into  Galilee."  John  iv.  1-3. 

This  dispute  between  "  the  Jeivs  arid  some  of 
John's  disciples  about  purifying''  was  a  dispute 
about  John  and  Christ's  baptizing.  The  fol- 
lowing seems  to  be  the  correct  view  of  the 
subject: — 

The  Jews  had  looked  at  the  doings  of  John 
with  admiration,  ''musing  in  their  hearts  whe- 
ther he  were  the  Christ,"  Luke  iii.  15  ;  and,  as 
was  natural,  when  Jesus  and  his  disciples  came 
into  the  same  country,  baptizing  and  making 
disciples,  some  of  the  Jews,  inclining  to  prefer 
Jesus  for  a  leader,  raised  a  dispute  with  the 
disciples  of  John  about  their  master  continu- 
ing to  baptize  after  a  superior  personage  had 
commenced  making  disciples.  These  disciples 
knew  that  John  himself  had  told  them  that 


94  ESSAYS   OX   THE 

Jesus  was  entitled  to  the  pre-eminence,  that  he 
was  scarce  worthy  to  loose  his  shoes  as  a  ser- 
vant ;  and,  consequently,  they  knew  not  what 
to  say  to  the  Jews,  and  so  they  came  and  told 
their  master  that  Jesus  was  making  and  bap- 
tizing disciples,  and  all  the  people  are  going 
to  him,  and  the  Jews  had  disputed  with  them, 
and  gotten  them  into  a  difficulty  about  it. 
John  heard  of  the  success  of  Jesus  with  joy; 
he  informed  his  disciples  that  his  joy  was  now 
full,  &c.  To  prevent  his  popularity  from  in- 
juring the  ministry  of  John,  Jesus  retired  into 
Galilee.  Manifestly,  then,  the  dispute  was  about 
these  extraordinary  personages  each  one  bap- 
tizing. K  so,  the  words  purifying  and  baptiz- 
ing are  used  interchangeably,  the  one  for  the 
other,  and  therefore  mean  the  same  thing. 

Of  Jesus  it  is  said: — "And  he  shall  sit  as  a 
refiner  and  purifier  of  silver;  and  he  shall 
purify  the  sons  of  Levi,"  &c.  Mai.  iii.  3.  In 
the  preceding  verse  the  prophet  says,  "He  is 
like  a  refiner's  fire,  and  like  fullers'  soap." 
John  the  Baptist  says,  "He  shall  baptize  you  with 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with /re."  Matt.  iii.  11.  Paul 
says,  "  That  he  might  redeem  us  from  all  in- 
iquity, and  purify  unto  himsdf  a  peculiar 
people,"  &c.  Tit.  ii.  14.  There  is  no  doubt  what 
Malachi  and  Paul  call  purify  John  calls  baptize: 
these  words,  therefore,  mean  the  same  thing. 


BAPTIST   CONTROVERSY.  95 

Baptism  being  a  purification,  it  is  also  called 
a  washing ;  which  is  a  kindred  word  in  mean- 
ing. "  That  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it 
with  the  washing  of  ivaier  by  the  word."  Eph. 
V.  26.  "Be  baptized,  and  icash  away  thy  sins." 
Acts  xxii.  16. 

Wherever  the  word  baptism  is  used  in  re- 
gard to  the  work  of  the  Spirit  or  to  the  wash- 
ing of  water,  the  word  purification  can  be  sub- 
stituted for  it  without  at  all  changing  the 
meaning  of  the  passage  where  it  is  used. 
Take  the  following,  for  example : — "  I  indeed 
jpurify  you  with  water;  he  shall  purify  you  with 
the  Holy  Ghost."  "Teach  all  nations,  purify- 
ing them,"  &c.  "He  that  believeth  and  is 
purified,'"  &c.  "Eepent,  and  be  purified  every 
one  of  you,"  &c.  "Jesus  made  and  purified 
more  disciples  than  John,"  &c.  "They  were 
purified,  both  men  and  women."  This  mode 
of  illustration  might  be  carried  to  a  great  ex- 
tent. The  reader  can  get  his  Bible  and  try  it 
till  he  is  perfectly  satisfied.  The  very  word 
purification  carries  a  charm  with  it,  it  agrees 
so  well  with  the  whole  gospel  scheme.  To  be 
purified  with  water  and  the  Spirit  is  to  be  born 
again — to  be  baptized  Tvdth  water  and  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

Two  purifications  pervade  the  teachings  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments.    The  great  work 


96  ESSAYS   ON   THB 

in  the  heart  performed  by  the  energy  of  the 
divine  Spirit  is  the  principal  one,  the  other  is 
ceremonial  and  representative.  It  consists  in 
the  external  application  of  water.  We  have 
seen  that  the  word  baptism,  in  the  IN'ew  Testa- 
ment, is  mostly  nsed  in  reference  to  both  these 
purifications.  We  shall  now  proceed  to  ex- 
amine the  modes  of  purification  or  baptism, 
both  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  of  water.  Before 
entering  upon  this  investigation,  however,  it 
will  be  proper  to  remind  the  reader  that  our 
Baptist  brethren  insist  that  baptism  always 
means  immersion  and  nothing  else.  Indeed,  this 
view  governs  their  whole  system.  Mr.  Howell, 
a  standard  writer  among  them,  says,  "In  the 
whole  history  of  the  Greek  language  it  has  but 
one  meaning ;  it  not  only  means  to  dip  or  im- 
merse, but  it  never  has  any  other  meaning." 
"If,  therefore,  any  respect  is  due  to  the  mean- 
ing of  words  used  to  describe  actions,  Christian 
baptism  is  confined  to  immersion."  (Sac.  Com. 
p.  172.)  Their  ministers,  writers,  and  people 
generally,  say  the  same  thing. 

If  baptism,  in  Greek,  alwaj^s  means  immer- 
sion and  nothing  else,  it  always  means  the 
same  thing  in  English  and  nothing  else.  "We 
propose,  therefore,  no  issue  about  Greek  or  any 
other  language ;  we  wish  no  foreign  issue.  We 
join  issue  on  the  mode.   We  care  not  what  word 


BAPTIST   CONTROVERSY.  97 

is  used,  provided  it  be  consistent  with  the  Bible. 
I  now  advertise  my  readers  that  I  do  not  eon- 
cede  to  the  Baptists  that  no  mode  is  pointed 
out  in  the  Bible,  as  pedobaptist  writers  usually 
do.  Although  I  believe  a  change  of  mode 
would  not  invalidate  the  ordinance,  yet  I  do 
not  believe  the  Scriptures  have  left  us  in  the 
dark  on  the  subject. 

The  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  being  the 
principal  one,  we  will  examine  its  mode  first. 
John  the  Baptist  says  of  Jesus,  "  He  shall  bap- 
tize you  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  Matt.  iii.  11. 
Jesus  said,  in  regard  to  this  same  baptism, 
"  John  truly  baptized  with  water,  but  ye  shall 
be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  not  many  days 
hence."  Acts  i.  5.  No  one  will  deny  that 
^'not  many  days  hence'  alluded  to  the  day  of 
Pentecost.  When  they  were  baptized  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  on  that  day,  Peter,  under  its  in- 
fluence, preached  a  sermon,  taking  for  his  text 
a  prediction  of  this  baptism  from  the  prophet 
Joel.  In  this  text  he  gives  us  the  mode  by 
which  this  baptism  was  performed,  in  these 
words: — ^' I  will  pour  out  of  my  Spirit  upon  all 
flesh.'"  Acts  ii.  17.  Here,  what  Jesus  and  John 
the  Baptist  call  "baptize"  Peter  and  Joel  call 
''pour  out  of  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh." 

To  pour  upon,  then,  is  to  baptize  ivith. 

At  the  house  of  Cornelius  we  have  this  bap- 


98  ISSAYS    ON    THK 

tism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  repeated.  "  While  Peter 
yet  spake  these  words,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all 
them  which  heard  the  word.  And  they  of  the 
circumcision  which  believed  were  astonished, 
as  many  as  came  with  Peter,  because  that  on 
the  Gentiles  also  was  poured  out  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Ghost."  Acts  x.  44, 45.  Peter  commanded 
these  Gentiles  to  be  baptized,  (verse  48,)  for 
which  the  apostles  and  brethren  at  Jerusalem 
contended  with  him,  (xi.  1,  2.)  Peter,  in  his 
defence,  related  the  providential  occurrences 
which  brought  him  to  the  place,  and  then  re- 
hearsed the  effect  of  his  preaching  in  the  fol- 
lowing words : — ''And  as  I  began  to  speak,  the 
Holy  Ghost  fell  on  them,  as  on  us  at  the  begin- 
ning. Then  remembered  I  the  word  of  the 
Lord,  how  that  he  said,  John  indeed  baptized 
with  water,  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the 
Holy  Ghost."  Acts  xi.  15,  16.  Mark  the  ex- 
pressions— "  jTAe  Holy  Grhost  fell  on  all  them  which 
heard,"  ^'Poured  out  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,'* 
'•'The  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  them  as  on  us,"  &c.,  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  when  all  agree  the  '^ Spi- 
rit was  poured  out.''  How^  could  these  pourings 
and  fallings  upon  cause  Peter  to  remember  the 
word  of  the  Lord  in  regard  to  baptism,  if  he  did 
not  understand  baptism  and  pouring  to  mean 
the  same  thing  ? 

Now,   Mr,  Howell,   you    say   "baptism,   in 


BAPTIST   CONTROVERSY.  99 

GreeJc,  not  only  means  to  dip  or  immerse,  but 
it  never  has  any  other  meaning."  Here  we 
have  seen  John  and  Christ  speaking  of  a  work 
they  call  baptism ;  Joel,  Peter,  and  Luke,  call 
the  very  same  v^ov^i  pouring.  This  is  the  way 
it  is  in  English.  IN'ow,  Mr.  Howell,  if  the  Greek 
word  always  means  immersion  and  nothing 
else,  immersion  must  always  be  meant  when 
the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  is  spoken  of.  Let  us 
see  how  that  is :  if  it  always  means  immersion, 
it  will  not  change  the  meaning  to  use  that  word 
in  every  instance.    We  will  then  have  it  thus : — 

"  The  Holy  Ghost  immersed  all  them  which 
heard  the  word."  ''  The  Holy  Ghost  immersed 
them  as  it  did  us  at  the  beginning."  I  give  it 
over  to  your  Greek.  The  English  Bible  won't 
answer  the  purpose  at  all. 

My  reader  will  please  bear  in  mind  that,  to 
sustain  the  Baptists,  baptism  must  always  mean 
immersion  and  nothing  else.  The  proof  that  it 
ever  means  to  pour,  even  in  one  solitary  in- 
stance, overturns  the  whole  Baptist  system  of 
exclusiveness.  Though  it  might  be  proven 
that  immersion  was  sometimes  the  meaning, 
yet  they  would  be  defeated.  If  we  have  proven 
that  the  word,  in  several  places,  means  to  pour, 
— as  we  think  we  have  done  most  clearly,  yea, 
to  POUR  and  nothing  else,  so  far  as  mode  or  action 
is  concerned, — then  must  the  doctrine  of  exclu- 


100  ESSAYS   ON    THE 

sive  immersion  be  false,  as  well  as  restricted 
communion,  without  any  thing  to  support  it. 

"We  now  hazard  the  assertion  that  the  word 
baptism,  in  every  place  in  the  ITew  Testament 
where  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  is  intended, 
means  to  poiLv  and  nothing  else,  so  far  as  mode 
or  action  is  concerned.  The  whole  Baptist 
world  cannot  refute  it.     They  dare  not  try. 

I^ow  we  proceed  to  examine  the  subject  of 
water  baptism.  Does  Paul  mean  immersion 
when  he  says  they  "were  all  baptized  unto 
Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea"  ?  1  Cor.  x.  2. 
The  place  where  this  baptism  occurred  forbids 
that  it  should  have  been  by  immersion.  "  The 
children  of  Israel  walked  upon  diy  land  in  the 
midst  of  the  sea ;  and  the  w^aters  were  a  wall 
unto  them  on  their  right  hand  and  on  their 
left."  Ex.  xiv.  29.  The  Baptists  try  to  get  clear 
of  this  by  making  it  a  figure.  But  what  evi- 
dence is  there  that  baptism  in  this  text  was  a 
figurative  baptism  more  than  any  other?  Was 
eating  the  same  spiritual  meat  a  figure  also  ? 
Was  drinking  of  that  spiritual  rock  that  fol- 
lowed them  a  figure  too  ?  As  well  might  we 
say  the  baptism  of  our  Lord  was  a  figure.  But 
what  was  the  mode  of  this  baptism  in  the  cloud 
and  in  the  sea?  ''The  clouds  j^oured  out  water.*' 
Ps.  Ixxvii.  17.  About  the  xQvy  same  affair, 
Paul  says  "they  were  baptized;"  Moses  says  it 


BAPTIST  CONTROVERSY.  101 

was  "on  dry  ground;''  and  David  says  "the 
clouds  poured  out  rain."  Then,  what  Paul 
calls  baptism  David  calls  ^^ pouring  out  rain.'* 
You  must  try  your  Greek  again,  my  Baptist 
friends.  You  perceive  the  English  Bible  makes 
baptism,  in  this  place,  mean  to  pour  and  no- 
thing else. 

Let  us  next  hear  from  Isaiah.  "  I  will  pour 
tuater  upon  him  that  is  thirsty^  and  floods  upon 
the  dry  ground:  I  WiM pour  my  spirit  upon  thy 
seed,"  &;c.  Isa.  xliv.  3.  Here  we  have  a  pro- 
phet writing  about  the  Christian  dispensation, 
representing  our  Lord  as  saying,  "  I  will  pour 
water;"  "I  will  pour  out  my  spirit."  How 
much  this  resembles  the  language  of  another 
prophet: — "I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water, 
{pour  it  on  you;)  he  shall  baptize  you  with 
the  Holy  Ghost,  {pour  it  upon  you.'')  But 
when  did  the  Lord  pour  out  his  spirit?  On  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  we  answer.  When  did  he 
pour  water  on  him  that  was  thirsty  ?  On  the 
day  of  Pentecost.  Three  thousand  were  thirsty ; 
and  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  water  was 
poured  upon  them  at  that  time,  according  to 
the  prediction  of  the  prophet.  And  we  may 
add  that  water  was  poured  by  John,  for  he 
says,  "I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water;"  and 
there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  his  doing  it  in  the 
same  way  the  baptism  of  the  spirit  was  per- 


102  ESSAYS  ON  THE 

formed,  which,  we  have  seen,  was  by  pouring, 
certainly. 

Il^ow,  whether  we  are  right  in  making  this 
pouring  of  water  refer  to  baptism,  as  set  forth 
in  the  l^ew  Testament,  men  will  and  ought  to 
think  for  themselves.  We  may  challenge  the 
whole  Baptist  world  to  produce  such  a  pre- 
diction from  any  of  the  prophets  in  favor  of 
immersion.  K  we  are  not  right  in  our  inter- 
pretation, will  the  Baptists  set  us  right  ?  We 
have  now  given  reasons  from  the  Bible  itself 
for  believing  that  baptism  sometimes  means  to 
pour,  and  that  the  apostles  so  understood  and 
practised.  We  believe  no  reasons  equally 
strong  can  be  brought  from  the  same  source  in 
favor  of  immersion;  much  less  can  it  be  shown 
that  it  always  means  to  immerse  and  nothing 
else. 

That  baptism  was  administered  by  sprinkling 
there  is  yet  more  abundant  proof.  Let  us  first 
hear  the  prophets. 

"Behold,  my  servant  shall  deal  prudently; 
he  shall  be  exalted  and  extolled,  and  be  very 
high.  As  many  were  astonished  at  thee,  his 
visage  was  so  marred  more  than  any  man,  and 
his  form  more  than  the  sons  of  men :  so  shall 
he  sprinkle  many  nations ;  the  kings  shall  shut 
their  mouths  at  him :  for  that  which  had  not 
been  told  them  shall  they  see,  and  that  which 


BAPTIST    GOKTROVERSY.  108 

they  bad  not  heard  shall  they  consider."  Isa. 
lii.  13-15. 

No  one  will  deny  that  this  passage  is  spoken 
of  the  Messiah.    It  may  be  paraphrased  thus : — 

My  servant,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  shall  deal 
prudently,  or  prosper,  (as  in  the  margin ;)  among 
the  nations,  he  shall  be  exalted  and  extolled  on 
account  of  his  divine  prudence.  Many  people 
were  astonished  at  thee  on  account  of  the 
cruelty  of  thy  treatment,  under  which  his 
visage  was  so  marred  more  than  any  man, 
even  those  guilty  of  sedition  and  murder,  and 
his  form  more  than  the  sons  of  men,  or  more 
than  can  happen  to  any  citizen :  as  the  nations 
were  astonished  at  thee,  on  account  of  th}' 
cruelty  to  him,  so,  to  thy  astonishment,  shall 
he  sprinkle  many  nations,  bringing  them  into 
the  church  by  baptism,  and  granting  them 
equal  privileges  with  you :  for  this  he  will  be 
opposed  b}'  principalities  and  powers ;  but  the 
kings  shall  shut  their  mouths  at  him,  when 
they  see  for  themselves  the  exercise  of  that 
divine  authority  of  which  they  had  never 
heard,  but  which  they  will  then  consider. 

Let  any  one  read  this  whole  chapter  atten- 
tively, with  the  following  two,  and  he  must  see 
that  our  paraphrase  is  just  and  in  accordance 
with  the  whole.  The  baptizing  of  the  nations 
agrees  well  with  the  declaration,  "  All  the  ends 


104  ESSAYS  ON  THE 

of  the  earth  shall  see  the  salvation  of  our  O^od." 
Isa.  Ixii.  10. 

But  is  it  water  or  blood  that  was  to  be 
sprinkled  upon  the  Gentile  nations?  Upon 
this  inquiry  we  may  observe : — 

1.  The  sprinkling  of  blood  (Heb.  ix.  13)  re- 
presents the  blood  of  Christ,  (Heb.  ix.  14,)  with- 
out which  there  is  no  remission,  (Heb.  ix.  22,) 
and  by  virtue  of  which  their  consciences  were 
•purged.  By  virtue  of  this  blood  we  have  our 
hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience,  by  the 
power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  token  of  which 
inward  cleansing  we  have  our  bodies  washed 
with  pure  water  (Heb.  x.  22)  or  baptized  with 
pure  water. 

2.  The  sprinkling  of  the  ashes  of  a  heifer 
(Heb.  ix.  13)  was  connected  with  the  cleansing 
of'  those  typical  atonements  by  which  the  un- 
clean was  sanctified  or  cleansed.  But  how 
was  this  done  ?  The  following  Scripture  will 
show : — 

"And  for  an  unclean  person  they  shall  take 
of  the  ashes  of  the  burnt  heifer  of  purification 
for  sin,  and  running  water  shall  be  put  thereto 
in  a  vessel:  and  a  clean  person  shall  take 
hyssop,  and  dip  it  in  the  water,  and  sprinkle  it 
upon  the  tent,  and  upon  all  the  vessels,  and 
upon  the  persons  that  were  there,  and  upon 
him  that  touched  a  bone,  or  one  slain,  or  one 


BAPTIST   CONTROVERSY.  105 

dead,  or  a  grave:  and  the  clean  person  shall 
sprinkle  upon  the  unclean  on  the  third  day,  and 
on  the  seventh  day:  and  on  the  seventh  day 
he  shall  purify  himself  and  wash  his  clothes, 
and  bathe  himself  in  water,  and  shall  be  clean 
at  even."  Lev.  xix.  17-19. 

The  ashes  of  a  burnt  heifer,  mixed  with  run- 
ring  water,  made  the  water  of  purification,  to 
the  sprinkling  of  which  the  apostle  undoubt- 
edly alludes  in  Heb.  x.  32,  which  we  paraphrase 
thus : — 

Let  us  draw  near  to  Jesus,  having  our  hearts 
sprinkled  from  an  e\^l  conscience  through  the 
merits  of  his  blood  and  by  the  power  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  our  bodies  washed  in  bap- 
tism with  pure  or  clean  water,  which  is 
sprinkled  upon  them  as  the  antetype  of  the 
water  of  purification. 

Thus  we  have  before  us  the  sprinkling  of 
both  blood  and  water.  To  one  of  these  Isaiah 
certainly  alludes  when  he  informs  us  that  "-lie 
shall  sprinkle  many  nations.''  "We  believe  he 
speaks  of  the  sprinkling  of  water,. for  the  fol- 
lowing reasons : — 

The  prediction  is  concerning  the  times  of  the 
gospel,  under  which  the  sprinkling  of  blood 
was  to  cease.  When  he  speaks  of  sprinkling 
the  Gentiles,  therefore,  he  could  not  mean  that 
they  were  to  be  sprinkled  with  blood.  Again : — 


106  ESSAYS   ON    THE 

We  have  a  very  circumstantial  prediction  of 
the  return  of  the  Jews  to  their  own  land,  and 
of  their  conversion  to  Christianity,  and  also 
their  being  baptized  by  sprinkling  clean  water 
upon  them.  If,  then,  the  "many  nations" 
were  to  be  sprinkled  in  the  same  way  the  Jews 
were  upon  their  return  to  their  own  land,  the 
whole  is  plain  enough.    Let  us  see  how  that  is. 

"  For  I  will  take  you  from  among  the  heathen, 
and  gather  you  out  of  all  countries,  and  will 
bring  you  into  your  own  land.  Then  will  I 
sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be 
clean:  from  all  your  filthiness,  and  from  all 
your  idols,  will  I  cleanse  3^ou.  A  new  heart 
also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit  will  I  put 
within  you :  and  I  will  take  away  the  stony 
heart  out  of  your  flesh,  and  I  will  give  you  a 
heart  of  flesh.  And  I  will  put  my  spirit  within 
you,  and  cause  you  to  walk  in  my  statutes,  and 
ye  shall  keep  my  judgments,  and  do  them. 
And  ye  shall  dwell  in  the  land  that  I  gave  to 
your  fathers ;  and  ye  shall  be  my  people,  and 
I  will  be  your  God."  Ezek.  xxxvi.  24-28. 

We  hope  the  time  is  near  at  hand  when  the 
house  pf  Israel  will  all  return  to.  their  own  land, 
and  again  be  grafted  into  the  good  olive-tree 
by  God's  giving  them  a  new  heart  and  baptiz- 
ing them  by  sprinkling  clean  water  upon  them ; 
so  that  they  may  become  his  people  again,  and 


BAPTIST    CONTROVERSY.  107 

he  be  their  God.  This  event  must  happen  as 
sure  as  there  is  any  truth  in  prophecy.  Let 
the  Gentiles  be  baptized  as  they  may,  it  is 
certain  the  Jews  will  be  sprinkled  when  they 
are  converted.  Since  Tsaiah  says  many  na- 
tions shall  be  sprinkled,  it  is  not  unreasonable 
to  believe  that  it  is  to  be  done  with  clean  water. 
If  so,  the  Scriptures  require  the  ordinance  to 
be  administered  in  that  way.  This  is  the  con- 
clusion to  which  God's  lexicon,  the  Bible,  con- 
ducts us.  Where  is  the  proof  that  baptism 
always  means  to  immerse  and  nothing  else  ? 

Having  now  shown  clearly,  as  we  believe, 
that  the  Scriptures  do  point  out  the  mode  or 
modes  of  baptism,  and  that  those  modes  are 
sprinkling  and  pouring,  and  that  there  is  no 
evidence  that  the  word  baptize  "  means  to  im- 
merse and  nothing  else,"  as  the  Baptists  con- 
stantly affirm,  we  shall  attempt  to  illustrate 
the  whole  from  examples  recorded  in  the  j^ew 
Testament.  In  doing  this,  we  shall  keep  a 
Baptist  antagonist  constantly  before  us,  making 
his  objections.  We  will  commence  with  the 
baptism  of  our  Lord. 

"  Then  cometh  Jesus  from  Galilee  to  Jordan 
unto  John,  to  be  baptized  of  him.  But  John 
forbade  Jwn,  saying,  I  have  need  to  be  baptized 
of  thee,  and  comest  thou  to  me  ?  And  Jesus, 
answering,  said  unto  him,  Suffer  it  to  he  so  now. 


108  ESSAYS  ON  THE 

for  thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfil  all  righteous- 
ness. Then  he  suffered  him.  And  Jesus,  when 
he  was  baptized,  went  straightway  out  of  the 
water :  and,  lo,  the  heavens  were  opened  unto 
him,  and  he  saw  the  Spirit  of  God  descending 
Hke  a  dove,  and  lighting  upon  him :  and,  lo,  a 
voice  from  heaven,  saying,  This  is  my  beloved 
Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased."  Matt.  iii.  13 
-17. 

In  this  account  there  is  supposed  to  be  very 
strong  evidence  of  immersion.  But,  after  a 
very  careful  examination  of  the  subject,  we 
must  confess,  if  there  be  any  proof  of  it,  we  are 
wholly  unable  to  perceive  it.  The  passage 
certainly  says  not  one  word  about  immersion, 
nor  does  it  give  the  remotest  hint  of  any  such 
thing.  We  are  simply  told  that  "  when  he  was 
baptized  he  came  straightway  out  of  the  water," 
&c.  This  proves  no  more  in  favor  of  one  mode 
than  another ;  for  it  says  not  one  word  about 
mode.  If  the  mode  is  ascertained,  it  must  be 
found  somewhere  else.  ISTow,  brother,  where 
will  you  find  the  proof  that  the  Saviour  was 
immersed?  Oh,  say  you,  I  think  John  must 
have  immersed  him  when  he  had  him  in  Jor- 
dan. But  stop,  brother,  you  do  not  offer  your 
thoughts  as  Scripture  proof,  do  you  ?  You  ask, 
What  did  he  go  into  Jordan  for  ?  If  I  were  to 
answer,  I  do  not  know,  would  you  dare  to  say 


BAPTIST   CONTROVERSY.  109 

that  you  do  know  ?  The  only  probability  of 
such  a  thing  deducible  from  the  history  of  the 
transaction  is  that  he  went  into  Jordan  to  be 
baptized.  But  as  to  the  mode  not  one  syllable 
is  uttered  anyway. 

But  then,  you  say,  there  is  proof  that  he  was 
baptized,  and  the  word,  in  Greek,  means  im- 
mersion. Brother,  that  is  the  very  thing  we 
dispute  about.  I  fear  you  have  had  sand 
thrown  in  your  eyes  about  Greek.  You  may 
rest  assured,  if  the  word  means  immersion  in 
Greek,  it  means  the  same  thing  in  English. 
But  who  told  you  that  it  means  that  and  no- 
thing else  in  Greek  ?  Did  the  Bible  tell  you 
so  ?  K  not,  I  cannot  admit  your  testimony. 
"We  must  look  to  the  Bible,  and  to  the  Bible 
alone,  for  proof;  and  neither  you  nor  I  have 
any  right  to  believe  any  thing  on  the  subject 
that  is  not  taught  in  the  Bible.  But  you  say 
you  cannot  see  what  he  was  in  the  water  for 
unless  it  was  to  be  immersed.  That  may  be. 
A  thousand  others  may  be  unable  to  see  why 
he  was  there ;  but  neither  will  their  ignorance 
nor  your  inability  to  see  ever  prove  that  he 
was  immersed. 

But  now,  brother,  I  will  give  you  my  reasons 
for  thinking  he  was  sprinkled  and  not  im- 
mersed. He  informs  us  it  was  done  to  "fulfil 
all  righteousness."     Then  it  must  have  been 

10 


110  ESSAYS    ON   THE 

required  by  that  law  which  he  came  not  to 
destroy  but  to  "fulfil."  That  law  does  not  re- 
quire immersion ;  but  it  does  require  sprink- 
ling expressly;  and  that  frequently.  It  is  not 
hazardous  to  believe  that  he  was  sprinkled  ac- 
cording to  the  law. 

Let  us  now  inquire  more  particularly  what 
the  Bible  does  teach  on  the  subject.  It  proves — 

1.  That  Christ  was  a  priest : — "  Thou  art  a 
priest  forever,  after  the  order  of  Melchisedec." 
Heb.vii.  17-21;  Psa.  ex.  4;  Heb.  v.  6,  10. 

2.  That  he  was  a  high-priest: — "Consider 
the  Apostle  and  High-Priest  of  our  profession, 
Christ  Jesus."  Heb.  iii.  1,  iv.  14, 15. 

He  is  a  coyisecrated  priest: — "Who  is  conse- 
crated for  evermore."  Heb.  vii.  28.  He  was 
made  a  priest  "like  unto  his  brethren."  Heb. 
ii.  17.  It  was  done  in  accordance  with  the  law. 
"And  no  man  taketh  this  honor  unto  himself 
but  he  that  was  called  of  God  ;  as  was  Aaron.'' 
Heb.  V.  4. 

Let  us  next  see  how  Aaron  was  consecrated 
to  the  office  of  high-priest.  In  this  we  will 
probably  learn  the  meaning  of  the  words, 
"  thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfil  all  righteousness^' 

"  But  Aaron  and  his  sons  thou  shalt  bring 
unto  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  con- 
gregation, and  shalt  wash  them  with  water  J" 
Ex.  xxix.  4. 


BAPTIST   CONTROVERSY.  Ill 

"  And  Moses  brought  Aaron  and  his  sons, 
and  washed  them  with  water.''  Lev.  ^aii.  6. 

2.  "  Then  shalt  thou  take  the  anointing  oil, 
and  pour  it  upon  his  head,  and  anoint  him." 
Ex.  xxix.  7. 

"And  he  poured  of  the  anointing  oil  upon 
Aaron's  head,  and  anointed  him,  to  sanctify 
him."   Lev.  viii.  12. 

3.  The  third  thing  in  the  consecration  of 
Aaron  and  his  sons  is  the  offering  for  an 
atonement.  The  description  of  this  part  of  the 
ceremony  is  too  lengthy  for  insertion  here. 
Those  who  wish  to  examine  it  vAW  find  the 
account  in  the  29th  chapter  of  Exodus  and  the 
8th  chapter  of  Leviticus. 

The  Aaronic  priesthood  was  only  typical  of 
a  better.  It  was  but  the  shadow  of  good  things 
to  come.  If  so,  its  consecration  is  only  typi- 
cal ;  the  law  requiring  it  must  be  fulfilled  and 
have  its  end  in  the  high-priesthood  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  The  ivashing  of  Aaron, 
then,  typifies  the  washing  or  baptizing  of 
Christ ;  the  anointing  of  Aaron  points  to  the 
descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon  the  Saviour ; 
the  offering  of  sacrifices  looks  to  the  great 
offering  of  himself  for  sin.  The  sprinkling  of 
blood  points  to  the  shedding  of  that  blood  by 
which  he  entered  into  the  holiest  of  all. 


112  ESSAYS   ON  THE 

"We,  however,  at  present,  are  chiefly  con- 
cerned with  the  washing  with  water. 

The  mode  by  which  Aaron  was  washed  is 
now  to  be  considered.  It  could  not  be  by  im- 
mersion, seeing  it  was  done  at  the  door  of  the 
tabernacle.  The  term  "wash"  is  not  determi- 
nate as  to  mode :  we  must  therefore  examine 
other  passages  to  determine  what  the  mode 
was.  The  reader  will  please  remember,  the 
whole  tribe  of  Levi  was  set  apart  to  the  ser- 
vice of  the  tabernacle,  though  not  to  the  high- 
priesthood.  In  their  consecration  what  we 
believe  to  be  a  similar  washing  was  used. 

"And  thus  shalt  thou  do  unto  them,  to 
cleanse  them :  sprinkle  water  of  purifying 
upon  them,"  &c.  I^umbers  viii.  7. 

From  all  this  it  appears  that  Aaron  was 
sprinkled.  The  law  required  it.  If  neither 
"jot  nor  tittle"  (Matt.  v.  18)  can  "in  anywise 
pass  from  the  law  till  all  be  fulfilled,"  then 
is  it  apparent  that  Jesus  must  have  been 
sprinkled  at  some  time.  And  when  we  con- 
sider that  his  baptism  was  to  "^o  fulfil  all 
righteousness,"  even  the  righteousness  of  the 
law,  and  especially  as  the  law  nowhere  re- 
quires immersion,  it  must  be  clear  that  Jesus 
was  sprinkled,  and  not  immersed,  in  his  bap- 
tism. If  our  opponents  cannot  show  that  the 
law  required  immersion,  they  can  hardly  tell 


BAPTIST    CONTROVERSY.  113 

what  righteousness  the  Saviour's  baptism  ful- 
filled. Consequently,  they  usually  evade  the 
discussion  of  this  point.  The  only  account  I 
have  either  seen  or  heard  from  them  on  this 
point  is  the  unsupported  and  insupportable 
assertion  that  he  was  baptized  as  an  example 
for  our  imitation.  Hence  they  make  much 
noise  about  following  the  Saviour  into  his 
watery  grave.  They  know  how  to  make  capital 
among  the  ignorant  with  such  things.  Let 
them  first  prove  that  Jesus  was  ever  in  a 
watery  grave,  by  the  Bible ;  and  then  from  the 
Bible  let  them  prove  that  Christ  designed  his 
baptism  as  an  example  for  us  to  follow.  In 
this  they  will  find  enough  to  do. 

Although  I  am  not  willing  to  make  Greek 
criticisms  of  my  own,  yet  I  could  have  quoted 
from  various  authors  of  ability,  such  as  the  Bap- 
tists have  never  answered,  showing  that  it  is  at 
least  doubtful  whether  Christ  was  ever  in 
Jordan  or  not.  This  I  have  chosen  not  to  do ; 
not,  indeed,  because  I  thought  them  of  no  use, 
but  because  I  do  not  wish  the  reader's  attention 
led  ofi'  upon  foreign  issues.  The  main  issue 
is  not  whether  Jesus  was  in  Jordan  or  out  of 
Jordan,  but  whether  he  was  immersed.  If  it 
were  proven  by  the  Bible  that  the  Jordan  was 
a  mile  wide,  and  that  the  Saviour  was  baptized 
in  the  middle  of  it,  still  it  would  not  be  proved 

H  10* 


114  ESSAYS   ON  THE 

thereby  that  he  waa  immersed.  Any  man  that 
will  take  the  trouble  to  think  about  it  will  be 
compelled  to  see  that  the  Bible  does  not  say 
any  thing  about  his  being  immersed.  That  our 
Baptist  brethren  believe  he  was  I  do  not  ques- 
tion; but  do  they  believe  it  upon  conjecture  or 
upon  Scripture  testimony  ?  If  proving  that  he 
was  baptized  and  conjecturing  that  it  was  done 
by  their  mode  proves  immersion,  then  have 
the  Baptists  proven  that  Christ  was  immersed. 

Let  the  reader  carefully  weigh  what  has  been 
said.  If  he  still  believes  he  can  see  evidence  of 
his  immersion,  I  shall  not  complain.  Let  him 
reflect,  however,  there  are  many  who  cannot. 

The  next  circumstance  relied  on  by  our  op- 
ponents is  the  following : — 

"And  John  also  was  baptizing  in  ^non, 
near  to  Salim ;  because  there  was  much  water 
there.'*  John  iii.  23. 

Although  I  do  not  believe  John's  baptism  to 
have  been  the  Christian,  yet  I  do  believe  them 
to  have  been  the  same  in  one  respect, — that  is, 
the  mode.  Since,  then,  the  mode  is  what  we 
are  now  considering,  the  above  passage  merits 
our  consideration.  The  Baptists  usually  take 
for  granted — 1.  That  Mwon  was  a  river;  2.  That 
the  "much  water"  was  wanted  for  the  adminis- 
tration of  baptism ;  and  3.  That  immersion  took 
place  at  JEnon.    But  this  is  taking  for  granted 


BAPTIST   CONTROVERSY.  115 

what  ought  to  be  proven.  According  to  the 
maps  of  that  country,  ^non  was  not  a  river, 
but  a  town.  That  it  was  a  well-watered  place 
there  is  not  any  doubt ;  but,  whether  the  "  muck 
water' '  was  in  a  river,  creek,  spring,  or  even  in 
wells,  we  are  not  told. 

Much  water  would  be  necessary  for  the  ac- 
commodation of  such  multitudes,  whether  bap- 
tism was  administered  at  all  or  not.  I  would 
not  hesitate  to  guess  that  the  mucli  ivater  Avas 
needed  to  cook  their  provision,  to  drink,  and 
to  wash  themselves,  as  well  as  for  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  ordinance.  This  would  be  to 
adopt  the  mode  of  argumentation  used  by  our 
opponents : — i.  e.  prove  what  I  could,  and  guess 
at  the  balance. 

As  to  the  guess  that  immersion  took  place  at 
^non,  we  admit  that  it  is  possible.  If  the 
reader  will  reflect  that,  though  we  were  to 
prove  that  ^non  was  a  river,  and  that  John 
baptized  in  the  middle  of  it,  still  immersion 
would  remain  to  be  proved.  But  neither  of 
these  have  been  proven.  All  the  proof  there 
is  in  this  world  that  John  immersed  in  ^non 
is,  the  Baptists  say  so.  The  Bible  says  nothing 
of  the  sort. 

K  my-  Baptist  brother  ask  me  what  John 
wanted  with  much  water,  if  not  to  immerse, 
I  answer  promptly,  I  do  not  know.     Dare  you, 


116  ESSAYS    ON   THE 

brother,  say  that  you  know?  But  perhaps  you 
say  you  cannot  see  what  he  wanted  with  much 
water,  unless  it  were  to  immerse  in.  That  all 
may  be.  But  your  seeing  or  not  seeing  is  no 
proof  either  way,  unless  your  powers  of  percep- 
tion were  inspired.  You  must  bring  Scripture 
proof  or  give  up  your  exclusiveness.  This  way 
of  proving  people  out  of  the  church  by  con- 
jecture will  not  do.     Take  another  Scripture : — 

"And  they  both  went  down  into  the  water, 
both  Philip  and  the  eunuch ;  and  he  baptized 
him.  And  when  they  were  come  up  out  of 
the  water,"  &c.  Acts  viii.  38,  39. 

This  passage  certainly  proves  that  the  eunuch 
was  baptized,  and  that  they  went  into  the 
water  to  do  it,  according  to  our  version.  But 
as  to  the  mode,  all  is  conjecture;  for  not  one 
word  is  said  about  it.  Some  ignorant,  super- 
stitious people  prove  by  this  very  passage  that 
they  ought  to  wade  into  the  water,  and  there 
be  sprinkled.  I  admit  the  passage  does  not 
certainly  sustain  them.  But  I  must  say  it 
proves  as  much  for  them  as  it  does  for  the 
Baptists. 

^t^ow,  brother,  you  cfuess  they  went  into  the 
water  for  the  purpose  of  immersion;  I  guess 
they  went  into  the  water  because  they 'had  no- 
thing to  get  it  in.  But  this  is  all  guess-work. 
I  frankly  confess  I  do  not  know.     You  must 


BAPTIST    CONTKOVERSY.  117 

likewise  acknowledge  that  you  do  not  know. 
If  you  do  not  know,  you  ought  not  to  require 
me  to  ahide  by  your  guess. 

"  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  bap- 
tism into  death,"  &c.  Eom.  vi.  4;  Col.  ii.  12. 

It  does  seem  to  me  that  any  one  who  had 
no  sectarian  purpose  to  answer  would  under- 
stand these  passages  to  refer  to  the  baptism  of 
the  spirit,  and  not  water-baptism  at  all.  To 
make  this  manifest,  we  will  examine  the  pas- 
sage from  Colossians. 

"And  ye  are  complete  in  him  which  is  the 
head  of  all  principality  and  power:  in  whom 
also  ye  are  circumcised  with  the  circumcision 
made  without  hands,  in  putting  ofl'  the  body  of 
the  sins  of  the  flesh  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ : 
buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  also  ye  are 
risen  with  him  through  the  faith  of  the  opera- 
tion of  God,  who  hath  raised  him  from  the 
dead.  And  you,  being  dead  in  your  sins  and  the 
uncircumcision  of  your  flesh,  hath  he  quickened 
together  with  him,  having  forgiven  you  all 
trespasses,"  &c.  Col.  ii.  10-13. 

Xo  one  is  at  a  loss  to  understand  the  ex- 
pressions, "being  dead  in  sin;"  "the  uncir- 
cumcision of  the  flesh ;"  "the  body  of  the  sins 
of  the  flesh."  All  understand  these  expressions 
to  refer  to  their  moral  state,  and  not  to  their 
church  relation  or  their  connection  with  ex- 


118  ESSAYS   ON   THE 

ternal  ceremonies.  Why  not  understand  the 
following  to  refer  to  their  moral  state  also? 
"You  hath  he  quickened;"  "  circumcised  with- 
out hands;"  "buried  with  him  in  baptism;" 
which  is  "Christ's  circumcision."  This  bap- 
tism which  quickens,  circumcises,  buries  our 
old  man  with  all  his  deeds,  and  forgives  all 
trespasses,  must  be  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit. 

But,  if  we  adopt  Mr.  Howell's  exposition  of 
the  Greek  word,  as  contained  in  the  following 
quotation,  we  will  have  some  difficulty  in  mak- 
ing immersion  out  of  this  burial  in  baptism. 

"It  has  also  been  said  that  it  is  a  generic 
word,  and,  without  respect  to  mode  or  exclu- 
sion of  all  modes,  denotes  any  application  of 
water.  This  idea  is  wholly  fanciful.  Except 
w^hen  the  word  signifies  to  die,  it  denotes  mode 
and  nothing  else."  (Sac.  Com.  p.  171.) 

"If,  therefore,  any  respect  is  due  to  the 
meaning  of  words  used  to  describe  actions, 
Christian  baptism  is  confined  exclusively  to 
immersion."  (Sac.  Com.  p.  172.) 

JSTow,  according  to  this  rule  of  interpretation, 
the  word  baptism  "-denotes  mode  and  nothing 
else:" — mode  of  action.  Well,  what  is  the 
mode  of  action  in  a  burial  ?  It  is  the  sprinkling 
and  pouring  of  the  earth  upon  the  dead  body. 
Then,  if  in  a  burial  "  it  denotes  mode  and  no- 
thing else,"  it  denotes  sprinkling  and  pouring. 


BAPTIST   COTfTTROVERSY.  119 

Now,  I  have  no  special  confidence  in  this  ap- 
plication of  Mr.  Howell's  rule.  I  should  not 
have  noticed  it  at  all,  but  we  are  frequently 
told  that  baptism  does  not  consist  in  the  thing 
done,  but  in  the  action,  mode,  or  manner  of 
doing  it.  I  guess,  likewise,  the  Baptists  will 
not  soon  abandon  this  position.  K  so,  it  is  fair 
to  work  their  own  doctrines  upon  them. 

"We  have  now  gone  through  a  hasty,  but,  it  is 
hoped,  a  sufficient,  examination  of  the  mode  of 
baptism.  If  we  have  taken  a  correct  view  of 
the  subject,  immersion  cannot  be  defended 
from  the  inspired  record.  And,  in  fact,  the 
advocates  of  that  mode,  in  the  present  day, 
seem  to  be  aware  that  the  English  Bible  does 
not  prove  it :  they  therefore  rely  upon  learned 
and  unlearned  appeals  to  the  Greek.  They 
find  fault  with  the  commonly-received  version 
of  the  Bible.  They  censure  without  mercy  the 
translators.  They  even  inform  us  that  King 
James  prohibited  them  from  translating  the 
word  bapiizo. 

Even  Mr.  Howell  does  not  hesitate  to  cen- 
sure the  bishops  and  the  king  after  the  follow- 
ing manner : — 

"The  bishops,  with  the  consent  of  King 
James,  prohibited,  therefore,  the  translation  of 
all  the  old  ecclesiastical  words,  among  which, 
with  others,   baptism  was   found.      The}^  re- 


120  ESSJiYS    ON    THK 

quired  that  the  original  Greek  words  should  be 
transferred,  only  changing  them  so  much  as  to 
give  them  an  English  termination.  Thus  the 
term  baptism  obtained  admission  into  the  ver- 
sion, and  immersion,  the  true  rendering,  w^as 
excluded  from  our  Bible.*'    (Sac.  Com.  p.  181.) 

The  reader  will  be  surprised  to  learn  that 
neither  the  bishops  nor  the  king  could  have 
any  motive  to  prompt  them  to  this  great  wicked- 
ness, seeing  the  established  church  baptized  by 
immersion  as  well  as  by  pouring.  I  copy  the 
following  from  the  book  of  Common  Prayer. 
In  the  baptism  of  infants,  the  minister  is  re- 
quired to  "say  to  the  godfathers  and  god- 
mothers, 

^^Name  (his  child; 

**And  then,  naming  it  after  them,  he  shall 
dip  it  in  the  water  discreetly,  or  shall  pour 
water  upon  it,  saying, 

"N.,  I  baptize  thee,  in  the  name,"  &c. 

The  same  occurs  in  the  baptism  of  adults : — 

*'  Then  shall  the  minister  take  each  person 
to  be  baptized  by  the  right  hand,  and,  placing 
him  conveniently  by  the  font,  according  to  his 
discretion,  shall  ask  the  godfathers  and  the 
godmothers  the  name ;  and  then  shall  dip  him 
in  the  water,  or  pour  water  upon  him,  saying, 

''K,  I  baptize  thee,"  &c. 

Here  it  will  be  observed  that  ''dip''  comes 


BAPTIST    CONTROVERSY.  121 

first,  in  both  instances.  It  must,  therefore, 
stand  on  equal  footing  with  '"''^pour,''  if  it  have 
not  the  preference.  !N"ow,  vAiy  should  Mr.  H. 
talk  so  piteously  about  the  injustice  of  the  king 
and  bishops  ? 

Mr.  Howell,  after  garbling  and  much  insinua- 
tion, although  he  was  unable  to  bring  the  first 
extract  to  prove  this  war  by  king  and  bishops 
upon  immersion,  breaks  out  in  the  following 
very  pious  exclamation : — 

"But  when  the  temporal  interests  of  men 
come  in  conflict  with  any  portion  of  divine 
truth,  how  prone  is  poor  human  nature  to  sacri- 
fice the  latter  to  advance  the  former  !"  (p.  182.) 

All  the  crime  of  which  the  translators  were 
guilty  was  giving  us  the  word  baptism  instead 
of  immersion.  He  pretends  to  quote  authority 
to  show  corruption  on  the  part  of  the  translators. 
His  quotations,  however,  prove  no  such  thing. 
The  truth  is,  Mr.  H.  is  greatly  dissatisfied  with 
our  present  Bible,  and  wishes  to  have  one  that 
will  'prove  immersion.  I  must  say,  however, 
this  is  rather  a  convenient  mode  of  establishing 
a  doctrine : — that  is,  when  the  Bible  does  not 
prove  it,  alter  it  till  it  will. 

Perfectly  fanatical  on  this  subject,  Mr.  H. 
pounces  on  the  British  and  Foreign  and  the 
American  Bible  Societies,  (p.  183,)  for  '*engraft> 
11 


122  ESSAYS   ON   THE 

ing  on  their  Foreign  Translation  these  pedo- 
baptist  corruptions." 

The  Baptists,  since  the  formation  of  their 
Bible  Society,  in  1837,  have  been  very  free  in 
their  censures  of  King  James  ;  who,  they  say, 
would  not  let  the  translators  translate  the 
word  bapiizo.  A  great  portion  of  this  country 
is,  at  this  moment,  of  opinion  that,  had  the 
king  allowed  it,  we  should  have  had  the  word 
baptism  left  out  of  the  Bible,  and  the  word  im- 
mersion in  its  place.  It  happens  that  the  direc- 
tions given  by  the  king  to  the  translators  are 
printed  and  preserved.     Here  they  are  : — 

"1.  The  ordinary  Bible  read  in  the  church, 
commonly  called  the  Bishops'  Bible,  to  be  fol- 
lowed, and  as  little  altered  as  the  original  will 
permit. 

"  2.  The  names  of  the  prophets  and  the  holy 
writers,  with  the  other  names  in  the  text,  to  be 
retained  as  near  as  may  be,  according  as  they 
are  vulgarly  used. 

"  3.  The  old  ecclesiastical  words  to  be  kept, 
as  the  word  church  not  to  be  translated  con- 
gregations. 

"  4.  When  any  word  hath  divers  significations, 
that  to  be  kept  which  hath  been  most  com- 
monly used  by  the  most  eminent  fathers,  being 
agreeable  to  the  propriety  of  the  place  and  the 
analogy  of  faith. 


BAPTIST   CONTROVERSY.  123 

"  5.  The  division  of  the  chapters  to  be 
altered  either  not  at  all,  or  as  little  as  may  be,  if 
necessity  so  require. 

"  6.  1^0  marginal  notes  at  all  to  be  affixed, 
but  only  for  the  explanation  of  the  Hebrew  or 
Greek  words,  which  cannot,  without  some  cir- 
cumlocution, so  briefly  and  fitly  be  expressed 
in  the  text. 

"  7.  Such  quotations  of  places  to  be  margin- 
ally set  down  as  shall  serve  for  the  fit  refer- 
ences of  one  Scripture  to  another. 

"  8.  Every  particular  man  of  each  company 
to  take  the  same  chapter  or  chapters;  and 
having  translated,  amended  them  severally  by 
himself,  where  he  thinks  good ;  all  to  meet  to- 
gether, to  confer  what  they  have  done,  and 
agree  for  their  part  what  shall  stand. 

"9.  As  any  one  company  hath  despatched 
any  one  book  in  this  manner,  they  shall  send 
it  to  the  rest,  to  be  considered  of  seriously  and 
judiciously,  for  his  majesty  is  very  careful  in 
this  point. 

"  10.  If  any  company,  upon  the  review  of 
the  book  so  sent,  shall  doubt  or  differ  upon 
any  places,  to  send  them  word  thereof,  to  note 
the  places,  and  therewithal  to  send  their  rea- 
sons ;  to  which  if  they  consent  not,  the  differ- 
ence to  be  compounded  at  the  general  meet- 


124  ESSAYS    ON    THE 

ing,  which  is  to  be  of  the  chief  persons  of  each 
company,  at  the  end  of  the  work. 

"  11.  When  any  place  of  special  obscurity 
is  doubted  of,  letters  to  be  directed  by  author- 
ity, to  send  to  any  learned  in  the  land  for  his 
judgment  in  such  a  place. 

"12.  Letters  to  be  sent  from  every  bishop 
to  the  rest  of  his  clergy,  admonishing  them  of 
this  translation  in  hand,  and  to  move  and 
charge  as  many  as,  being  skilful  in  the 
tongues,  have  taken  pains  in  that  kind,  to 
send  their  particular  observations  to  the  com- 
pany, either  at  Westminster,  Cambridge,  or 
Oxford,  according  as  it  was  directed  before  in 
the  King's  letter  to  the  archbishop. 

"13.  The  directors  in  each  company  to  be 
the  Deans  of  Westminster  and  Chester  for 
Westminster,  and  the  King's  Professors  in 
Hebrew  and  Greek  in  the  two  Universities. 

"14.  These  translations  to  be  used,  when 
they  agree  better  with  the  text  than  the 
Bishop's  Bible,  viz.: — Tindal's,  Coverdale's, 
Matthew's,  Whitchurch's,  Geneva. 

"15.  Besides  the  said  directors  before  men- 
tioned, three  or  four  of  the  most  ancient  and 
grave  divines  in  either  of  the  Universities,  not 
employed  in  translating,  to  be  assigned  by  the 
vice-chancellor,  upon  conference  with  the  rest 
of  the  heads,  to  be  overseers  of  the  translation, 


BAPTIST   CONTROVERSY.  125 

as  well  Hebrew  as  Greek,  for  tlie  better  obser- 
vation of  the  4th  rule  above  specified." 

I  have  copied  the  whole  of  the  king's  direc- 
tions to  the  translators,  from  Home's  Intro- 
duction, vol.  ii.,  for  the  purpose  of  disabusing 
the  public  mind  on  the  subject.  My  readers, 
I  am  sure,  will  say  with  me  that  the  instruc- 
tions not  only  do  not  prohibit  the  translation 
of  bapiizo  or  any  other  zo,  but  are  as  clear  of 
any  thing  to  be  complained  of  as  human  na- 
ture is  capable  of  producing. 

I  wish  I  could  cover  with  the  mantle  of 
charity  these  palpable  misrepresentations  of 
matters  of  fact.  This  I  can  easily  do  with  the 
ignorant ;  but  some  of  them  are  not  of  this  class. 
If  the  king  and  bishops  did  prevent  the  trans- 
lation of  haptizo,  the  proof  can  be  produced. 
Let  them  produce  it.  This  they  will  never  do. 
I  challenge  them  to  produce  it.  Let  them 
cease  this  endless  whining  about  a  correct 
translation,  or  show  their  authority. 

In  the  year  1837  the  Baptists,  with  some  few 
honorable  exceptions,  withdrew  their  patron- 
age from  the  American  Bible  Society,  and 
formed  one  of  their  own,  assigning  as  the  rea- 
son for  that  step  the  incorrectness  of  the  Bible 
published  by  the  American  Bible  Society. 
Their  great  concern  to  furnish  the  world  with 
a  correct  Bible  seems,  however,  so  far,  to  ex- 
11* 


126  ESSAYS   ON    THE 

haust  itself  on  their  foreign  missions.  The 
people  of  our  own  country  are  left  to  struggle 
with  the  common  version,  with  all  its ''  pedobap- 
tist  corruptions. ' '  Let  that  Society  publish  such 
a  version  of  the  Kew  Testament  in  English,  as  it 
has  in  some  other  languages,  if  it  dare.  There 
is  little  doubt  they  will  work  the  heathen,  to 
whom  they  send  their  translations,  into  the 
water.  This  course  may  all  be  correct.  Many, 
however,  doubt  it. 

I  had  intended  to  introduce  many  extracts 
from  documents  in  my  possession,  showing  the 
history,  doings,  &c.  of  their  Society.  But 
these  essays  are  already  becoming  tedious. 
In  the  next  we  will  examine  a  different  subject, 
— viz. :  Eestricted  Communion, 


ESSAY  vin. 

ON   RESTRICTED   COMMUNION. 

Are  the  Baptists  justifiable  in  restricting  Sacra^ 
mental  Communion  to  their  own  sect  ? 

In  maintaining  the  negative  of  this  question, 
we  shall  endeavor  to  establish  a  free  com- 
munion by  considering — 

1.  The  unity  and  identity  of  the  church. 


BAPTIST    CONTROVERSY.  127 

That  there  is  but  one  church  is  clearly  set 
forth  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  It  is  equally 
clear  that  there  never  has  been  but  one,  nor  can 
there  ever  be.  To  support  our  position,  we 
rely  upon  the  following,  with  many  other  pas- 
sages of  God's  word : — 

^^Now  ye  are  the  body  of  Christ,  and  members 
in  particular."  1  Cor.  xii.  27. 

"For,  as  the  body  is  one,  and  hath  many  mem- 
bers, and  all  the  members  of  that  one  body, 
being  many,  are  one  body:  so  also  is  Christ. 
For  by  one  spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one 
body,  whether  we  be  Jews  or  Gentiles,  whether 
we  be  bond  or  free,  and  have  been  all  made  to 
drink  into  one  spirit.  For  the  body  is  not  one 
member,  but  many."  1  Cor.  xii.  12-14. 

"But  now  are  they  many  members,  yet  but 
07ie  body.''  1  Cor.  xii.  20. 

"  For,  as  we  have  many  members  in  one  body, 
and  all  members  have  not  the  same  office,  so 
we,  being  many,  are  one  body  in  Christ,  and 
every  one  members  one  of  another."  Rom. 
xii.  4,  5. 

From  these  plain  quotations  it  is  manifest 
that  the  church  is  one  body,  and  that  it  must 
remain  one  as  long  as  Christ  is  one.  It  is  also 
clear  that  we  are  constituted  members  of  that 
one  body,  not  by  water-baptism,  but  by  the  bap- 
tism of  one  spirit.     Hence  we  argue  that  the 


128  ESSAYS   ON  THB 

whole  church,  gathered  together  under  one  ad- 
ministration or  scattered  abroad  under  divers 
administrations,  must  recognise  in  each  of  its 
members  the  right  to  commune.  That  every 
member  of  this  one  body  has  the  right  to  com- 
mune we  are  not  left  to  inference  alone. 

The  apostle  says,  "I  speak  as  to  wise  men; 
judge  ye  what  I  say.  The  cup  of  blessing 
which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the 
blood  of  Christ?  The  bread  which  we  break, 
is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ? 
For  we,  being  many,  are  one  bread  and  one 
body ;  for  we  are  all  partakers  of  that  one  bread. 
1  Cor.  X.  15-17. 

In  this  quotation  the  apostle  argues  that  the 
church  is  07ie  body,  from  the  fact  that  they  had 
all  been  partakers  of  that  one  bread.  We  design 
by  this  passage  to  prove  that  the  right  to  com- 
mune at  the  Lord's  table  belongs  to  every 
member  of  that  one  body.  If  it  establish  this 
right,  then  does  it  follow  that  a  restricted  com- 
munion cannot  be  maintained  without  a  viola- 
tion of  the  children's  rights,  where  such  chil- 
dren are  acknowledged  to  exist.  As  long, 
therefore,  as  our  Baptist  brethren  acknowledge 
there  are  Christians  among  other  denomina- 
tions, so  long  do  they  deprive  such  Christians 
of  their  acknowledged  right;   so  long  are  the 


BAPTIST   CONTROVERSY.  129 

heirs  of  God  disinherited  in  their  Father's 
house. 

To  get  clear  of  this  reasoning,  the  advocates 
of  restricted  communion  must  contend  either 
that  other  denominations  constitute  no  part  of 
the  body  of  Christ,  or  that  the  church  has  been 
divided  and  its  unity  destroyed.  And  it  is 
possible  that  they  suppose  that  each  fragment 
has  become  a  church  itself,  and  has  in  itself 
its  own  peculiar  unity  and  identity.  There  has 
been  lamenting,  therefore,  about  the  division  of 
the  church.  It  is  an  interesting  question, 
whether,  indeed,  the  church  has  been  divided. 
K  it  be  divided,  it  can,  and  will,  I  fear,  be 
destroyed:  but  if,  on  the  other  hand,  she  has 
maintained  her  identity  and  remained  united 
in  one  body  for  near  six  thousand  years,  we 
need  not  now  feel  any  alarm  at  all  at  the  hate 
of  Satan  and  the  malice  of  wicked  men.  She 
will  present  one  hroad  front  to  the  armies  of  the 
prince  of  darkness. 

We  deny  most  strenuously  that  any  division 
has  ever  taken  place.  As  reasons  against  this 
division  of  the  church,  we  submit  the  follow- 
ing:— 

1.  Christ  pledges  himself  that  no  such  thing 
shall  take  place. 

"And  I  say  also  unto  thee,  That  thou  art  Peter, 
and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  church; 
I 


180  ESSAYS   ON   THl 

and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against 
it."  Matt.  xvi.  18.  We  say  of  this  founda- 
tion, after  the  apostle,  'Hhat  Rock  was  ChrisC* 
1  Cor.  X.  4.  If  there  ever  was  a  church  huilt 
upon  any  other  foundation,  it  was  not  a  true 
church.  On  this  foundation  there  can  be  built 
but  one  church.  There  has,  therefore,  never 
been  any  but  one  church  since  the  world  began. 

2.  Christ  took  his  church  from  the  Jews  and 
gave  it  to  the  Gentiles. 

"  Hear  another  parable :  There  was  a  certain 
householder,  which  planted  a  vineyard,  and 
hedged  it  round  about,  and  digged  a  winepress 
in  it,  and  built  a  tower,  and  let  it  out  to  hus- 
bandmen, and  went  into  a  far  country.  And 
when  the  time  of  the  fruit  drew  near,  he  sent 
his  servants  to  the  husbandmen,  that  they 
might  receive  the  fruits  of  it.  And  the  hus- 
bandmen took  his  servants,  and  beat  one,  and 
killed  another,  and  stoned  another.  Again  he 
sent  other  serv^ants  more  than  the  first;  and 
they  did  unto  them  likewise.  But  last  of  all 
he  sent  unto  them  his  son,  saying,  They  vrill 
reverence  my  son.  But  when  the  husbandmen 
saw  the  son,  they  said  among  themselves,  This 
is  the  heir;  come,  let  us  Idll  him,  and  let  us 
seize  on  his  inheritance.  And  they  caught 
him,  and  cast  him  out  of  the  vineyard,  and 
slew  him.      When  the  lord  therefore  of  the 


BAPTIST   eONTROVERST.  131 

vineyard  cometh,  what  will  he  do  unto  those  hus- 
bandmen P  They  say  111110  him,  He  will  miser- 
ably destroy  those  wicked  men,  and  will  let  out 
his  vineyard  unto  other  husbandmen,  which 
shall  render  him  the  fruits  in  their  seasons. 
Jesus  saith  unto  them,  Did  ye  never  read  in  the 
Scriptures,  The  stone  which  the  builders  reject- 
ed, the  same  is  become  the  head  of  the  corner : 
this  is  the  Lord's  doing,  and  it  is  marvellous  in 
our  eyes  ?  Therefore  say  I  unto  you,  the  king- 
dom of  God  shall  be  taken  from  you,  and  given  to 
a  nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof  Matt, 
xxi.  33-43. 

In  this  parable,  the  wicked  husbandmen  were 
doubtless  the  Jews;  the  vineyard,  the  church, 
or  "the  kingdom  of  God."  Those  other  hus- 
bandmen, "  a  nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits 
thereof,"  were  the  Gentiles,  who  are  now  the 
people  of  God.  Then  the  veiy  same  vinegar dy 
let  out  to  the  wicked  Jews,  is  now  among  the 
Gentiles.  The  Lord  did  not  destroy  the  old 
vineyard  and  plant  another.  He  only  built  a 
new  fence  around  the  old  one.  Seeing  a  new 
fence,  many  have  supposed  it  was  a  new  vine- 
yard. They  forget  that  it  stands  upon  the  one 
only  foundation  w^hich  has  been  laid  in  Zion. 

In  the  lltli  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  Paul  represents  the  church  under  the 
figure  of  a  good  olive-tree.     The  Jews  he  call* 


13*2  ESSAYS    ON   THE 

the  natural  branches,  which,  he  says,  were 
broken  off.  The  Gentiles  he  styles  branches, 
taken  from  a  wild  olive-tree  and  grafted  into 
the  good  one, — the  same  one  off  of  which  the 
Jews  were  broken.  No  digging  up  the  old 
olive-tree  and  planting  a  new  one. 

If,  then,  the  vineyard  was  the  same  under 
the  old  covenant  that  it  continued  to  be  under 
the  new,  and  it  could  pass  through  a  change 
of  dispensations  from  one  nation  to  another 
without  change  or  division,  are  we  to  suppose 
that  it  has  been  divided  since  that  period  ?  Im- 
possible !  It  is  still  one  body.  All  should, 
therefore,  be  allowed  to  commune. 

3.  Christ  prayed  for  the  unity  of  the  church. 

"Holy  Father,  keejp  through  thine  own  name 
those  whom  thou  hast  given  me,  that  they  may 
he  one,  as  we  are."  John  xvii.  11.  "  Neither  pray 
I  for  these  alone,  but  for  them  also  which  shall 
believe  on  me  through  their  word:  that  they 
all  may  he  one;  as  thou.  Father,  art  in  me,  and 
I  in  thee,  that  they  also  may  he  one  in  us :  that 
the  world  may  believe  that  thou  hast  sent  me. 
And  the  glory  which  thou  gavest  me  I  have 
given  them;  that  they  may  he  one,  even  as  we 
are  one — I  in  them,  and  thou  in  me ;  that  they 
may  he  made  perfect  in  one,  and  that  the  world 
may  know  that  thou  hast  sent  me,  and  hast 
loved  them  as  thou  hast  loved  me."  John  xvii. 


BAPTIST   CONTROVERSY.  ISS 

20-23.  Jesus  never  trusted  the  unity  of  the 
church  to  men,  but  to  the  Father.  This  unity 
is  not  found  in  water-baptism,  by  any  mode, 
but  in  that  of  the  Spirit. 

Mr.  Howell  (p.  287)  asks,  "  How  is  this  union, 
for  the  blessed  consummation  of  which  all 
hearts  must  glow  with  anxious  desire,  to  be 
produced?"  "It  must  be  a  union  in  the  truth^ 
otherwise  it  would  not  deserve  the  name."  Mr. 
H.  can  always  solve  a  difficulty  of  this  sort. 
He  says,  (p.  288,)  "  It  can  be  attained  only  by 
a  return  to  original  gospel  principles."  The 
plain  English  of  this  is.  We  can  all  join  the 
Baptists,  whether  we  believe  their  doctrines 
and  usages  or  not.  There  are  many  of  us  who 
would  think  we  were  leaving  "  original  gospel 
principles."  What  then  ?  Mr.  H.  can  fix  all 
this.  "  This  they  can  easily  do  without  violat- 
ing their  consciences  in  any  particular,"  (page 
288.)  He  goes  on,  (same  page,)  "A  believer  as 
the  candidate,  and  immersion  as  baptism,  all 
confess  to  be  legitimate."  To  this  intelligent 
pedobaptists  can,  with  as  good  conscience,  con- 
fine themselves.  Beyond  this  we  cannot — wo 
dare  not — go.  Our  conscience  will  not  permit 
us.  Thus  far  all  perfectly  harmonize.  Here 
let  us  pause,  meet,  and  unite,  and  the  results  will 
gloriously  accelerate  that  concord  to  which 
prophecy  has  taught  us  to  look  forward,  when 


134  ESSAYS   ON   THB 

"  every  one  shall  see  eye  to  eye  and  speak  the 
same  thing." 

In  what  does  Mr.  Howell  suppose  that  all 
would  see  eye  to  eye  if  they  were  to  join  the 
Baptists?  Evidently  in  adult  baptism.  He 
does  not  pretend  they  would  see  eye  to  eye  in 
any  thing  else  more  than  they  now  do.  It  is 
evidently  set  forth  in  our  quotations  from  Mr. 
H.  that  he  thinks  Christ's  prayer  for  the  union 
of  his  people  has  not  been  answered,  nor  will 
it  be  until  all  join  the  Baptists.  But  why,  Mr. 
IL,  has  this  prayer  never  been  answered  ?  Have 
"  the  pedobaptists  brought  in  and  kept  up  the 
impediment?"  'Now,  I  call  in  question  this 
whole  scheme.  "When  it  is  said  that  the  Chris- 
tians are  not  one,  those  who  say  it  do  nothing 
less  than  contradict  the  apostle  flatly.  What 
would  one  naturally  think  to  sit  down  and  read 
the  Saviour's  prayer  that  all  that  should  believe 
on  his  name  should  be  one,  and  then,  some 
thirty  or  forty  years  after  the  prayer  was 
uttered,  hear  the  apostle  say,  Ye  are  the  "  body 
of  Christ,"  ^'ye  are  all  baptized  into  one  body 
by  one  spirit,"  &c.?  Could  he  conclude  that  the 
prayer  was  not  answered  ?  To  suit  Mr.  Howell's 
view,  the  apostle  should  have  said,  We  are  all 
baptized  into  one  body  by  one  mode  of  baptism. 
I^ow  Mr.  H.  does  not  pretend  that  we  are  not 
baptized  by  the  Spirit ;  yet  we  cannot  see  eye 


BAPTIST   CONTROVERSY.  18$ 

to  eye ;  we  cannot  be  one  at  all.  But,  if  we 
just  let  a  Baptist  preacher  immerse  us,  (all 
which  he  says  we  could  do  without  injuring 
our  conscience,)  we  would  then  "gloriously 
accelerate  that  concord  to  which  prophecy  has 
taught  us  to  look  forward,  when  every  one  shall 
see  eye  to  eye,"  &c.  Thus,  if  Mr.  H.  has 
clearly  set  forth  his  own  principles,  he  believes 
that  immersion  has  more  virtue  than  the  baptism 
of  the  Hol}^  Ghost, — that  is,  when  it  is  done  by 
a  Baptist :  it  would  be  no  better  than  sprink- 
ling if  it  were  performed  by  a  Methodist  or 
Presbyterian.  To  make  the  brethren  "  see  eye 
to  eye,"  a  Baptist  administrator  is  indispensable. 
With  this,  all  would  be  perfect  harmony — all 
baptized  into  one  body — the  Saviour's  prayer 
would  be  answered — we  would  all  get  into  the 
old  church,  "which  is  neither  Catholic  nor 
Protestant,  but  apostolic." 

It  is  little  less  than  impious  to  suppose  that 
our  Lord's  prayer  for  union  did  not  prevail. 
If  it  did  prevail,  then  the  church  is  one,  and 
should  therefore  commune  together. 

4.  I  argue  for  a  free  communion  on  the 
ground  that  we  all  come  in  at  the  right  door. 

"I  am  the  door  of  the  sheep."  John  x.  7.  "I 
am  the  door.  By  me  if  any  man  enter  in,  he 
shall  be  saved,"  &c.  John  x.  9.  How  does  Je- 
BUS  bring  disciples  into  the  fold?     "He  shall 


136  ESSAYS   ON  THE 

baptize  you  with  the  Holy  GhosV  Matt.  iii.  11. 
"-By  one  Spirit  we  are  all  baptized  into  one  body.'* 
1  Cor.  xii.  13.  If  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  administered  by  Jesus,  will  not  entitle 
us  to  commune  at  the  Lord's  Table,  will  im- 
mersion, administered  by  a  Baptist,  give  such 
right?  Or  which  of  the  two  has  the  most 
virtue  ? 

Having  gone  through  the  argument  as  far  as 
we  intended  in  favor  of  a  free  communion,  it 
•  now  remains  for  us  to  attempt  the  refutation 
of  our  opponents. 

The  Baptists  defend  their  restricted  com- 
munion by  asserting  that  baptism  must  go  be- 
fore communion,  and  that  nothing  is  baptism 
but  immersion.  From  these  premises  they 
conclude  that  no  one  has  a  right  to  commune 
who  is  not  immersed.  If  these  could  both  be 
proven,  then  they  would  be  correct.  But  where 
is  the  proof  of  either?  In  what  chapter  and 
verse  is  the  passage  requiring  baptism  by  any 
mode,  as  being  an  indispensable  prerequisite 
to  the  Lord's  Supper,  to  be  found?  Or  is  that 
a  human  tradition  ? 

If  the  law  of  Christ  require  baptism  before 
the  Lord's  Supper,  the  command  can  be  found 
in  the  Kew  Testament.  Mr.  Howell  devotes 
two  chapters  to  this  subject.  The  first  one  is 
his  Scriptural  argument.  I  call  it  Scriptural  only 


BAPTIST   CONTROVERSY.  137 

because  he  quotes  many  passages.  He  says 
these  passages  prove  that  baptism  must  go  be- 
fore communion.  But  I  confess,  if  there  be  the 
least  proof  in  any  of  them  I  am  too  dull  to 
perceive  it.  For  example,  he  tries  to  prove  it 
by  the  commission  Christ  gave  the  disciples. 
Everybody  knows  that  the  commission  says 
not  one  word  about  it.  The  whole  chapter  is 
a  perfect  failure.  It  would  be  quite  an  easy 
task  to  answer  every  thing  in  it.  He  succeeds, 
however,  much  better  in  his  second  chapter  on 
the  subject. 

I  shall  content  myself  with  giving  a  list  of 
his  witnesses,  introduced  in  his  last  effort. 
Here  is  the  list : — Justin  Martyr,  Jerome,  Aus- 
tin, Bede,  Theophylact,  Bonaventure,  Fried. 
Spanheim,  Lord- Chancellor  King,  Wall,  Dod- 
dridge, Manton,  Dwight,  all  the  catechisms  and 
confessions  of  faith,  and  Robert  Hall.  If  he 
had  added  l^Ir.  Benedict,  or  himself,  then  the 
list  would  have  been  complete.  Is  it  not  a 
little  strange  that  a  man  who  professes  to  go 
by  the  Bible  alone,  constantly  insinuating  that 
all  other  denominations  go  by  some  other  au- 
thority, would  resort  to  the  opinions  of  men  so 
frequently?  All  the  refutation  necessaiy  in 
regard  to  such  proof  is  to  state  that  it  is  unin- 
spired men  giving  testimony.  K  Mr.  Howell 
thinks  he  can  prove  us  all   out  of  the  true 

12* 


138  ESSAYS   ON   THB 

church  in  this  way,  he  will  find  himself  mis- 
taken. 

Since  Mr.  Howell  cannot  get  proof  from  the 
Bible  to  sustain  the  affirmative,  we  will  try  if 
we  cannot  prove  something  on  the  other  side. 
The  first  Supper  was  administered  to  the 
twelve  by  the  Master  himself.  Ten  of  these, 
we  insist,  never  were  baptized  in  any  way  ex- 
cept by  the  Holy  Ghost.  Two  of  them  had 
been  the  disciples  of  John  previously,  (John  i. 
35,  37,)  and  it  is  fair  to  conclude  that  they  had 
been  baptized  by  him.  These  two  are  the  only 
ones  of  the  twelve  that  we  have  the  least  evi- 
dence of  their  baptism.  The  mentioning  of 
these  two  as  being  John's  disciples  proves  that 
the  others  were  not.  If  so,  John  never  bap- 
tized them.  If  he  did  not,  who  did?  The 
only  inducting  ceremony  to  which  the  ten  had 
submitted  was  that  of  circumcision.  If  their 
circumcision  did  not  supply  their  want  of  bap- 
tism, then  is  it  certain  that  nothing  of  that  sort 
is  necessary,  since  the  ten  were  not  baptized. 
That  baptism  seems  to  have  usually  gone  be- 
fore the  Supper  I  freely  admit,  but,  so  far  as  the 
proof  goes,  the  ten  form  an  exception.  Were 
it  not  for  this  exception,  I  would  be  ready  to 
conclude  the  general  observance  of  that  order 
was  evidence  of  a  law  from  the  Master,  although 
the  law  is  not  recorded.    I  need  not  concede 


BAPTIST   CONTROVERSY.  139 

this  ground,  which  is  good  against  them,  unless 
our  Baptist  friends  will  agree  that  baptism 
came  in  the  place  of  circumcision.  The  very 
moment  that  is  done,  I  must  abandon  it.  Will 
they  concede  it  ? 

It  must,  however,  be  admitted  on  all  hands 
that  the  Bible  does  not  require  by  any  plain 
command  that  baptism  should  always  precede 
the  Supper. 

As  to  the  other  part  of  their  assumption, — 
that  nothing  is  baptism  but  immersion, — we 
have  elsewhere  remarked,  and  need  not  repeat 
it  here. 

In  this  discussion  the  church  has  been  con- 
sidered one  and  indivisible  under  all  dispensa- 
tions and  circumstances.  What,  then,  we  will 
be  asked,  about  the  different  denominations? 
Is  there  no  schism  in  their  case  ?  !N'one  at  all. 
They  are  but  so  many  captains'  companies  in 
the  same  great  army.  The  division  among 
them  is  sectarian,  which  is  not  inconsistent 
with  the  unity  of  the  church.  This  will  appear 
as  soon  as  we  examine  what  is  necessary  to 
constitute  a  sect.  The  church  is  composed  of 
those  who  are  united  to  Christ.  Those  who 
are  mystically  united  to  him  by  the  baptism  of 
the  Spirit,  which,  and  which  alone,  can  do  it, 
are  members  of  the  Catholic  invisible  church 
under  all  dispensations. 


140  ESSAYS   ON   THE 

Those  who  are  baptized  with  water  are 
thereby  made  members  of  the  Catholic  church 
visible  under  the  Christian  dispensation.  The 
same  was  accomplished  by  circumcision  under 
the  old  covenant. 

A  sect,  though  in  the  church,  is  a  very  dif- 
ferent thing  from  it.  While  the  church  is 
united  in  the  essentials  of  religion^  a  sect,  as  such, 
is  only  united  in  matters  of  opiyiion. 

Hence,  a  man  may  be  a  member  of  a  sect 
and  not  be  a  member  of  the  body  of  Christ:  so 
may  he  be  a  member  of  the  church  without 
being  united  to  a  sect. 

It  will  be  asked  whether  the  author  of  these 
essays  considers  sectarian  division  an  evil  in 
the  church?  To  which  he  replies  promptly, 
he  does  not.  By  the  existence  of  different 
sects,  intrigues  with  the  church  becomes  much 
more  difficult  than  it  would  otherwise.  Men 
need  watching.  The  existence  of  a  party  out 
of  power,  to  watch  those  that  are  in,  prevents 
much  corruption  in  civil  government.  If  all 
sectarian  division  were  done  away,  it  would 
not  be  so  specially  the  interest  of  any  one  to 
prevent  corrupt  political  intrigues, —  such  in- 
trigues as  politicians  are  usually  ready  to  make. 
As  it  is,  as  soon  as  one  denomination  could  get 
rightly  under  way,  others  would  sound  the 
alarm.     Let  there  be  but  one  denomination  in 


BAPTIST   CONTROVERSY.  141 

the  United  States,  and  very  soon  the  people 
will  find  themselves  jpaying  tithes. 

Christ  manages  the  affairs  of  his  own  king- 
dom. I  am  no  convert  to  the  idea  that  our 
blessed  Lord  planted  a  church  in  the  world 
and  then  abandoned  it  to  its  own  management. 
"Lo,  I  am  with  you  always,  even  to  the  end  of 
the  world." 


CONCLUSIOK 


In  the  preceding  pages  we  have  seen  that, 
according  to  the  Bible,  Jesus  alone  has  a  right 
to  give  laws  to  his  people.  Hence,  all  human 
laws  are  null  and  void,  and  of  no  force.  Under 
this  head  we  have  marked  as  human  laws  the 
requiring  of  members  to  join  the  church  by 
experience.  We  have  seen  that  it  is  of  very 
mischievous  tendency  and  without  any  counte- 
nance in  God's  word.  We  have  endeavored 
to  show  the  nature  and  use  of  circumcision, 
the  right  of  infant  baptism,  and  of  a  free  com- 
munion at  the  Lord's  Supper.  With  all  these 
we  have  endeavored  to  disprove  the  necessity 
of  immersion  in  the  ordinance  of  the  baptism. 
I  have  now  to  request  that  my  readers  receive 


142    E5SAY5    ON   THE    BAPTIST    CONTROVERSl. 

no  more  of  these  essays  than  shall  be  found  in 
accordance  with  God's  word. 

Believing  the  doctrines  herein  set  forth,  the 
author  rejoices  in  the  prospect  of  the  final 
triumph  of  the  truth.  He  rejoices  in  the  belief 
that  the  Bible  will  finally  be  followed  by  all. 

June  11,  1846. 


THE   END. 


BTKB£OTTPKt>  BT  L.  JOBMBON  AND  CO. 
PBau>HLPHlA. 


